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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
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 pair of cylindrical recesses in claim 30 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Please note that Applicant’s Figure 9 appears to show recesses 41 and 43, however, Applicant’s specification (09/28/2021) originally does not discuss those cylindrical recesses 41 and 43;
another words, there is no evidence that both recesses 41 and 43 are cylindrical.
Looking at Figure 9 is not shown enough to consider the recesses are cylindrical.
What are functions of these recesses? Why do the recesses have to be cylindrical?
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 05/07/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “a pair of recesses …extending perpendicularly to the reciprocating direction of the moveable trimmer blade (as set forth in claims 1, 13, 16, 21) and oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal extend of the housing (as set forth in claims 13, 16 and 21)” and the amendment of paragraph 28 “a pair of cylindrical recesses 41, 43 extend in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis, A, of the housing 12” (emphasis added). See the new matter discussion below (also, see the drawing issue above). Claim 30 “the pair of cylindrical recesses” is new matter.
Also, the phrase “wherein a distance between outside surfaces of the opposed side panel members is equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member” of claims 1, 13, 16, 21 is new matter since the original specification does not support the phrase.
Looking at figures 3 and 9, the side panel members 38 (shown only one) and a front panel member 36. Both side panel members 38 extend from the panel member 36 and widen to match a shape of intermediate handle section. Therefore, it is unclear how a distance between the opposed side panel members is equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member. Where is the distance between the opposed side panel members?
See Applicant’s specification, para. 26 (05/13/2024) “a front panel member 36, opposed side panel members 38 that extend generally perpendicularly from the front panel member 36, and a narrow top panel member 40 that likewise extends generally perpendicularly from the front panel member 36. The front, side and top panel members 36, 38, 40 are contoured and shaped so that the cover 30 blends smoothly with the outer surfaces of the housing 12 and cutting head 22” (emphasis added). Since it states “generally perpendicularly…”, there is no evidence that a distance between outside surfaces of the opposed side panel members is equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member. There are many various distances between the opposed side panel members 38. Where is the distance between the opposed side panel members 38 (in order to be equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member)?
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9-18, and 21, 26-27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the independent Claims introduce new matter with the term of “a pair of recesses extending perpendicularly to the reciprocating direction of the moveable trimmer blade (as set forth in claims 1, 13, 16, 21) and oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal extend of the housing (as set forth in claims 13, 16 and 21)” (emphasis added), in which the original specification does not support (no discussion that the recesses are cylindrical and extending perpendicularly…) and there is no top and side views of the hair cutting device without the cover, in order to evidence the recesses 41 and 43 are cylindrical or have positions perpendicular to the reciprocating direction and the longitudinal extend of the housing. Also, claim 30 “the pair of cylindrical recesses” is new matter.
Examiner has carefully reviewed the original disclosure and it hasn’t discussed the term, even the language “cylindrical recesses” or “recesses”. Looking at drawings, especially in Figure 9, they appear two recesses 41, 43, but it is clear whether they are cylindrical recesses or denting recesses or oval, … hemispherical recesses.
Since the recesses are circular cross-sections, there is no evidence that the recesses have positions perpendicular to the reciprocating direction and the longitudinal extend of the housing.
Thus, Examiner cannot find any evidence that the “recesses” are oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing (there is no discussion. There is no top and side plan views without the cover or a cross-section view, in order to evidence that both recesses 41, 43 have positions perpendicular to the reciprocating direction and the longitudinal extend of the housing).
Reading the original Para. 28 (09/28/2023) as suggested by Applicant’s remark, there is no discussion of recesses (it does not even mention the words “recesses or recess”).
Examiner notes that Applicant keeps adding new features to the original specification, therefore, it is new matter.
Claim 30 “the pair of cylindrical recesses are non-threaded” in which the original specification does not support. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and it hasn’t discussed the term. Looking at drawings, especially in Figure 9, there appear portions of two recesses 41, 43, but it does not have enough evidence whether the recesses are cylindrical and non-threaded or not since there is no side and top plan views, therefore, it is new matter.
All claims dependent from claims 1, 13, 16, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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, 9-18, and 21, 26-27, 30 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.
Claims 1, 13, 16, 21 recite “a pair of recesses …extending perpendicularly to the reciprocating direction of the moveable trimmer blade and claims 13, 16 and 21 recites “a pair of recesses…oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal extend of the housing” are confusing and render indefinite since a recess is an indentation, a groove, …or a hollowed-out area, which has an at least three-dimensional shape and multiple extending directions including extending perpendicularly to the reciprocating direction of the moveable trimmer blade and …oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal extend of the housing. Thus, it is unclear and vague what the scope of these claims be.
Claims 1, 13, 16, 21 the phrase “the pair of recesses having a circular cross-section” is unclear how two recesses, but only one circular cross-section. Are they two circular cross-sections respectively, right?
Claims 1, 13, 16, 21 the phrase “a distance between outside surfaces of the opposed side panel members is equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member” is unclear and renders indefinite since the phrase is new matter (see the discussion above).
See Applicant’s original specification, para. 26 (05/13/2024) “a front panel member 36, opposed side panel members 38 that extend generally perpendicularly from the front panel member 36, and a narrow top panel member 40 that likewise extends generally perpendicularly from the front panel member 36. The front, side and top panel members 36, 38, 40 are contoured and shaped so that the cover 30 blends smoothly with the outer surfaces of the housing 12 and cutting head 22” (emphasis added). Since it states “generally perpendicularly…”, as results, a distance between outside surfaces of the opposed side panel members is NOT equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member. Also, there are many various distances between the opposed side panel members 38. Where is the distance between the opposed side panel members 38 (in order to be equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member)? Therefore, it is unclear what scope to be given for this phrase or the language “equivalent”.
Claim 30 “the pair of cylindrical recesses” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers the pair of recesses in claim 21 or inherently refers to previously introduced recesses.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 1, 13, 16, 21 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 claims 1, 13, 16, 21.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 12-18, and 21, 26-27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (CN208729853U and Translation) in view of Luca (EP 3593962A1, art of record), Masanobu (US 4977042) and as evidenced by KR reference (KR 200470668 Y1, Art of record) hereinafter Reference’s 688.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Zhong shows a hair cutting device (Figures 1, 2), comprising:
a cutting head (Figure 2 including a blade assembly 4) having a moveable trimmer blade (16) and a stationary trimmer blade (14);
a collection chamber (2) adjacent to the moveable trimmer blade and the stationary trimmer blade (Figure 2 and page 2 of Translation, the last paragraph “the cutter 4 is … the two blades …, and at least one of the blades is reciprocally movable in the width direction of the body”); and
a cover or a solid door (a removable cover 3, Figure 1) enclosing the collection chamber, the cover being removably connected to the cutting head via magnet interface (first magnets 1 and second magnets of the cover 3, Figure 2), the cover having a width that is greater than the moveable trimmer blade in a reciprocating direction of the movable trimmer blade (see Figures 1-2 that shows a width of the cover is slightly greater than the inner moveable blade);
a pair of recesses (seats or mounting grooves 7 for receiving cylindrical magnets 1, Figure 2) within the interior space behind the cover and extending perpendicularly to reciprocating direction of the moveable trimmer blade (Figure 2), the pair of recesses having circular cross-sections, respectively (see Figure 2)
wherein the cover includes a front panel member (where the reference “3” in Figure 1) having an outside and an inside surface (top and bottom sides of the cover 3, Figure 1) and
wherein the magnetic interface including a pair of magnets located on the cutting head and a pair of ferromagnetic elements located on the cover (with regards to the “ferromagnetic”, this is intrinsically limitation because magnets or magnetized material has a ferromagnetic material).
Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism that is noticeably attracted to a magnet and as evidenced by the reference’s 688 that shows a magnet and a metal plate.
However, Zhong silently discusses that the opposite side panel members include gripping elements having longitudinally-extending raised ridges (the opposed side panel members extending from the front panel member to a location proud of the inside surface of the front panel member) and wherein a distance between outside surfaces of the opposed side panel members is equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member.
Luca shows the cover that has two opposed side panel members (where the reference “166”, Figure 3b, that is flushed to a surface of a handle side 122) extending from a front panel member (top side 164) to a location proud of an inside surface of the front panel member (coupling portions 170, Figure 3a and Para. 54 recites “the corresponding coupling portions 128 may comprise magnets”) that is a raised ridge (Figure 3a).
Masanobu shows a hair cutting device or a shaver (Figure 54) including a cover (14, Figure 28) including two opposed side panel members extending from a top or front panel member that designs to flush all sides of surfaces of the shaver handle (see Figure 39), wherein the cover have longitudinally-extending raised ridges (110, Figure 54).
Based on the teachings of Luca and Masanobu above, 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 cover or the door of Zhong to have opposite opposed side panel members extending from a top of a cover, as taught by Luca and longitudinally-extending raised ridges, as taught by Masanobu, in order to be easily grasped and lift up the cover or door.
As Zhong’s figures and disclose, it is unclear whether one magnet or two magnets or pair of ferromagnetic elements on Zhong’s cover, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the second magnet into two magnets or ferromagnetic elements, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8., in order to allow to generate magnet fields more efficient and allow the cover, itself, can be made of material other than ferromagnetic material.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Zhong shows that a blade drive assembly (Page 2 of Translation, the last paragraph “the cutter 4 reciprocates under the driving of the driving device”) operatively connected to the moveable trimmer blade and being configured to transmit a rotational output of a motor (“the driving device”) housed within a housing (Figures 1-2 of Zhong) of the hair cutting device into reciprocating movement of the moveable trimmer blade; wherein the blade drive assembly is accessible via the collection chamber (Figure 2 of Zhong).
If one argues that Zhong’s driving device is NOT a motor. Then, see Luca’s device that has a motor (Para. 43) for driven the moveable blade.
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 driving device of Zhong to have a motor, as taught by Luca, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose of driving the moveable blade.
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Zhong shows that the magnetic interface and cover are configured such that magnetic attraction between the cover member and the cutting head causes the cover to move to a seated position on the cutting head even when a degree of misalignment between the cover and the cutting head is present (the magnetic coupling of Zhong is configured to perform it since the cover is removable and while the cover is manually placed on the cutting head of the clipper, there is a degree of misalignment between the cover and the cutting head is present, however, the magnetic coupling has a magnetic field between magnet and a ferromagnetic element for attracting and re-alignment).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Zhong teaches a method of operating a hair cutting device (see the discussion in claims 1, 9, 12 above), comprising the steps of:
activating a motor (see claim 9) of the hair cutting device to move a movable blade with respect to a stationary blade;
placing the movable blade and the stationary blade into contact with hair of a user so as to cause the movable blade and the stationary blade to cut the hair (Figures 1-2 of Zhong “hair clippers”);
grasping a cover and exerting a pulling force on the cover member to overcome a magnetic attraction between the cover and a cutting head of the hair cutting device to remove the cover from the hair cutting device to provide access to an interior chamber (see the modification of claim 1; the cover is removed from the clipper; a person can grasp the screen and pulls it out from the clipper, there is no other way to remove the screen magnetically attached from the clipper, that means a pulling force applied to the cover is greater than the magnetic force or magnetic attraction),
wherein the cover includes a front panel member (where the reference “3” in Figure 1 of Zhong) having an outside and an inside surface (top and bottom sides of the cover 3, Figure 1 of Zhong) and a pair of opposed side panel members extending from the front panel member to a location proud of the inside surface of the front panel member (see the modification in claim 1 above); and
wherein the interior chamber includes a pair of cylindrical recesses, the pair of cylindrical recesses being accessible when the cover is removed (see the discussion in claim 1 above and while the parts are removed and Figures 1-2 of Zhong) and being oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal extent of a housing of hair cutting device and perpendicularly to a reciprocating path of the moveable blade (Figures 1-2 of Zhong). Also see claim 1 for “a distance between outside surfaces of the opposed side panel members is equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member”.
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Zhong teaches that placing the cover over the interior chamber such that there exists a degree of misalignment between the cover and the interior chamber, wherein a configuration of the cover and a magnetic interface between the cover and the cutting head facilitates automatic movement, via magnetic attraction, of the cover member from a misaligned position to an aligned and seated position of the cover over the interior chamber (see the discussion in claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 15, see the discussions in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Zhong teaches all of the limitations as stated in claims 1, 9, 12-15 above including the door (cover, see the details in claims 1 and 13 above) and the pair of recesses the pair of cylindrical recesses within the interior space behind the cover, each of the cylindrical recesses being oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal extent of the housing and perpendicular to a reciprocating path of the moveable blade (see in Figure 2 of Zhong). Also see claim 1 for “a distance between outside surfaces of the opposed side panel members is equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member”.
Regarding claim 17, Zhong shows the first element or first magnets (1, Figure 2) on the cutting head and the door having the second magnet, itself, is magnetically attracted to the first element (Zhong’s Page 3 of Translation, the 4th paragraph “the cover plate 3 is a ferromagnetic member… made of a material such as iron, cobalt, nickel, etc.,).
Regarding claim 18, see the discussions in claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 21, The modified device of Zhong teaches all of the limitations as stated in claims 1, 9, 12-15 above including the cover removably connected to the housing (see the removable cover 3 of Zhong). Also see claim 1 for “a distance between outside surfaces of the opposed side panel members is equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member”.
Regarding claim 26, The modified device of Zhong teaches that the at least one elongate gripping element is a pair of elongated gripping elements; and wherein each of the opposed side panel members includes a respective one of the pair of the elongated gripping elements(see the discussion claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 27, The modified device of Zhong teaches that outside surface of the cover is coextensive with an exterior surface of the housing (see Figures 1-2 of Zhong and see the discussion of the modification cover that is flushed with the outer surfaces of the tool or device as seen in Zhong’s device, Masanobu’s device and Luca’s device).
Regarding claim 30, the modified device of Zhong teaches the cylindrical recesses being non-threaded, and extend forwardly of a central member (bottom member of the cutting head) within the interior space (Figures 1-2 of Zhong and see page 3 of Translation, the 4th paragraph “a tubular mounting groove 7, … The magnet and the mounting groove 7 can be specifically fixed by bonding, interference fit” that means NON-thread).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Luca, Masanobu, Palmer (US 2009/0106981) and as evidenced by KR reference (KR 200470668 Y1, Art of record) hereinafter Reference’s 688.
Regarding claims 10-11, the modified device of Zhong shows all of the limitations as stated above including the housing (Figures 1-2 of Zhong) connected to the cutting head and the battery assembly having a battery in the housing, the battery being configured to supply electrical power to the motor within the housing.
Examiner notes that Zhong’s Figures 1-2 shows a wireless or portable device; it inherently has a battery assembly of some sorts to supply electric power to the driving device, however, it does not discuss a battery removably receivable in the housing and have a pair of resilient arm members configured to releasably retain the battery within the housing.
Parmer shows a hair cutting device (Figures 1-3) that has a battery assembly removable by removing a bottom (16) which has two latches or a pair of resilient arm members configured to releasably retain the battery within the housing (Para. 16, the batteries are removable).
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 housing of Zhong to have a battery assembly including a pair of resilient arms, as taught by Palmer, in order to allow resilient arms to be configured to releasably retain the battery within the housing and replace it if it is needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
With regards to drawings, Applicant states that “Figure 9 clearly shows such configuration…”, this argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive because
The original specification does not discuss or mention any recess. Looking at figure 9, it appears that there are two recesses, but it is unclear whether they are oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction or not. Looking at Figure 9 again, it is unclear whether the recesses is perpendicular to a longitudinal extend of the housing or slightly and angularly from perpendicular to a longitudinal extend of the housing (similar with the reciprocating direction, figure 9 shows a left side of the cutting line is lower than the right side of the cutting line). Also, it is not shown an end of the recess, thus, it is unclear whether the recess is hemispherical or oval or droplet or else, in order to acknowledge that the recess is oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction.
Applicant provides annotated Figure 9 to explain that both recesses are perpendicular to the housing and the reciprocating direction, however, Figure 9 and Applicant’s annotations are unclear and not enough evidence to conclude that both recesses are oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction of the moveable blade, in which is not discussed in the original specification and figures. This is Applicant’s conclusion, not from the original application.
Thus, the drawing objections remain the same.
What are functions of these recesses? Why do the recesses have to extend perpendicular to the reciprocating direction? Does any discussion recesses (perpendicular to the reciprocating direction) in the original specification?
With regards to specification objection under 35 U.S.C. 132(a), see the response above.
Applicant states that “MPEP 608 …Applicant may rely for disclosure upon the specification with original claims and drawings…”, Examiner well acknowledges the MPEP 608, however, the original specification, filed on 09/28/2021, does not discuss the recesses (perpendicular to the reciprocating direction) or mention any recesses and the original drawing, filed on 09/28/2021, especially, figure 9 shows two circles (where the reference “32” be), which appear recesses, but there is not enough evidence to consider that the circles are cylindrical recesses perpendicular to the reciprocating direction (see the discussion above).
To understand more the limitations, Examiner keeps asking what functions of these recesses be? Why do the recesses have to extend perpendicular to the reciprocating direction? Does any discussion recesses (perpendicular to the reciprocating direction) in the original specification? However, there seems to be no addressed it.
With regards to new matter of the 112a, the new matters remain the same since there is no evidence both recesses are oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction, especially, in Applicant’s Figure 9 shows “a pair of recesses generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction. However, there is no support by the original disclosure, drawings, or claim the pair od recesses are cylindrical and oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction. As seen in Figures 4 and 9, Examiner or one skill in the art couldn’t tell whether the both recesses are oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction. See the discussion above for new matter.
Where is the discussion of recesses that is oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction in the original specification (para. 28), the original drawing (figure 9), the original claims, filed on 09/28/2021?
Applicant states that “this configuration is clearly shown in FIG. 9 and is described in paragraph [0028]”, Examiner reads the original specification, Para. 28, filed on 09/28/2021 and there is no discussion of “cylindrical recesses” or “recesses”.
Applicant also states that “the forward-facing ends of the recesses, as well as a portion of the terminal end of the recesses are visible, and it can be clearly seen in FIG. 9 that the recesses have a depth and a circular cross-section; thus, by definition, they are cylindrical…the fact that the entire distal ends of the recesses are NOT visible…”, this argument is acknowledged, but it is not persuasive. For an example, a hemispherical recess having a depth and a terminal end is NOT a cylindrical recess.
There is not enough evidence to conclude these recesses being cylindrical and oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction. Based on Figure 9, it appears a pair of recesses (half spherical or dropped shapes or dents, a pair of protrusions…). Whether the recesses are cylindrical and oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the housing and the reciprocating direction or not, the shapes and the positions of the recesses must be discussed in the original specification and figures must show side and top views of the recesses.
Thus, the objections and rejections are proper and remain the same.
With regards to claim 30, it is new matter because the new features “cylindrical …non-threaded” added after the original application filing. Figure 9 just shows portions of the recesses, but it does not have enough evidence whether the recesses are cylindrical and non-threaded or not since there is no side and top plan views, therefore, it is new matter.
What are functions of these recesses? Why do the recesses have to be cylindrical and non-threaded?
With regards to art rejections by combination of the arts Zhong (CN208729853U and Translation) in view of Luca (EP 3593962A1, art of record), Masanobu (US 4977042) and as evidenced by KR reference (KR 200470668 Y1, Art of record) hereinafter Reference’s 688, the argument is acknowledged but it is persuasive because the applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner agrees that Zhong does not show two opposite side panel members of the cover/door including a longitudinally-extending raised ridge, however, Luca’s Figure 3b shows a cover having two opposite side panel members extending a top or front panel member and Masanobu’s Figure 54 shows a cover (14) having two opposite side panel members extending a top or front panel member and a longitudinally-extending raised ridge (110). Based on the teachings of Luca and Masanobu, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
With regards to the amendments in claims 1, 13, 16, and 21 “wherein a distance between outside surfaces of the opposed side panel members is equivalent to a width of outside surface of the front panel member”, it is new matter (see new matter above). the combination of arts above read on it. See the rejections above.
Luca shows the cover having two opposite side panel members extending a top or front panel member (which is generally perpendicular to the side panel members. Also note that there is no mete and bound of the front panel member. The front panel member can be portions 160, 168, Figure 6 of the remarks) and Masanobu’s Figure 54 shows a cover (14) having two opposite side panel members extending a top or front panel member (which is perpendicular to the side panel members) and a longitudinally-extending raised ridge (110). Based on the teachings of Luca and Masanobu, therefore, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose.
With regards to “the cover appears to seamlessly blend into…”in the remarks, page 14, see both Luca and Masanobu arts.
Regards to other arguments, see the explanations in the rejections above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s device different from the prior art’s device or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
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 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 2/20/2026