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 . 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.
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 1,2,4-7,9, 12 and 15-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
-The term “sufficiently stiff” in claims 1 and 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
-Regarding claims 1 and 15, the language concerning the workpiece is unclear. Is the hair to be cut human hair, animal hair, or fake/synthetic hair made of numerous different materials? Are certain hair lengths, styles and types applicable to all situations such that the barrier members are always less stiff than the hair to be cut, but sufficiently stiff such that the barrier members undergo no or little deformation? As currently claimed, it is unclear as to the bounds of the force that can be caused by the hair. As currently claimed, the apparatus must merely be capable of cutting some type of hair. The claims appear to recite language that requires the workpiece. For example “wherein the barrier members are sufficiently stiff such that the barrier members undergo no or little deformation under a force caused by the cut hair for preventing the cut hair from flying off” examiner notes it is unclear what can and cannot be considered sufficiently stiff, and what “no or little”/ “little to no deformation” provides for. It also appears that the hair must provide a force to the barrier members, which does not appear to be supported. For the purposes of examination, the workpiece will be treated as intended use, and the structural elements are capable of interacting with hair, as a workpiece.
-The term “sufficiently large” in claim 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 4-7,9,12 dependent from claim 1 and claims 16-20 dependent from claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1,2,4-6, 9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujikawa (U.S. Patent No. 5,185,931).
Regarding claim 1, Fujikawa teaches a hair-cutting apparatus (Abstract), comprising:
a cutting arrangement (20) for cutting hair; and
a cut-hair-blocking element (30,40) arranged in front of a cutting zone of the cutting arrangement in a direction in which the hair-cutting apparatus is moved to cut hairs during use, and adjacent to an upper side of the cutting arrangement for counter-acting flying off cut hair from the cutting arrangement during use, wherein the upper side is opposite to a skin-touching side of the cutting arrangement (Figures 1-2);
wherein the cut-hair-blocking element has a hair receiving portion at a bottom of the cut-hair-blocking element close to the cutting zone for allowing hair to be cut to pass through the hair receiving portion to enter the cutting zone (Figure 1; Examiner notes there to be space between comb teeth 35a/45a to allow hair to be cut);
wherein the hair receiving portion has a row of cut-hair-blocking members (35a), wherein adjacent cut-hair-blocking members have an interspace therebetween configured to prevent the cut hair from passing through the interspace, or the adjacent cut-hair-blocking members have no interspace therebetween (Figures 1-3 and 6-7; Examiner notes the interspace is capable of preventing hair from passing through);
wherein the cut-hair-blocking members comprise barrier members (45a)(Figures 2 and 7); wherein the barrier members are sufficiently flexible such that the barrier members undergo deformation under a force caused by the hair to be cut for allowing the hair to be cut to pass through the barrier members to enter the cutting zone (Figures 2 and 6-7; Col. 5 Lines 1-39; Examiner notes that as no materials or properties have been claimed, the prior art has a material, and the material is “sufficiently flexible” such that a deformation of any degree is capable of being caused by a workpiece”); and
wherein the barrier members are sufficiently stiff such that the barrier members undergo no or little deformation under a force caused by the cut hair for preventing the cut hair from flying off; and wherein the cut-hair-blocking members are contiguous to a tip of a guard blade of the cutting arrangement (Figures 2 and 6; Col. 4, Lines 31-65; Examiner notes the structural elements are capable of no deformation or at least some deformation depending upon the outside force that is directed).
Regarding claim 2, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cut-hair-blocking members further comprise shield members (36) having an interspace between adjacent shield members (Figures 1 and 6; Col. 4, Lines 31-65; Examiner notes the comb teeth provide structural bounds to allow for an “interspace” between adjacent shield members);
the shield members are sufficiently stiff such that the shield members undergo no or little deformation under a force caused by the hair to be cut and under a force caused by the cut hair for preventing the cut hair from flying off (Figures 1 and 6);
the interspace between the adjacent shield members is sufficiently large to allow the hair to be cut to pass through the interspace to enter the cutting zone during use and the barrier members are arranged within the interspace between the adjacent shield members (Figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the shield members are provided in a comb-like structure (Figures 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 5, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the barrier members are provided in a brush-like structure and/or a strip-curtain-like structure (Figures 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 6, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cut-hair-blocking element has a boundary wall for counter-acting the flying off cut hair from the hair-cutting apparatus (31)(Figures 6 and 7; Examiner notes the boundary wall to be the inner top surface of the cut hair blocking element).
Regarding claim 9, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 1 and wherein the cut-hair-blocking element is an element integrated with the hair- cutting apparatus (Figures 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Fujikawa teaches a hair-cutting apparatus (Abstract and Figure 1), comprising: a cutting arrangement (20) for cutting hair;
wherein the cutting arrangement defines a cutting zone (Examiner notes the cutting zone to be the spacing between comb teeth 35 and 45 as shown in Figure 6); and
a cut-hair-blocking element (30,40) arranged in front of the cutting zone in a direction in which the hair-cutting apparatus is moved to cut hairs during use (Figure 6), and adjacent to an upper side of the cutting arrangement for counter-acting flying off cut hair from the cutting arrangement during use, wherein the upper side is opposite to a skin-touching side of the cutting arrangement (Figures 1-2);
wherein the cut-hair-blocking element comprises a hair receiving portion at a bottom of the cut-hair-blocking element adjacent the cutting zone, wherein the hair receiving portion is configured to allow hair to be cut to pass through the hair receiving portion to enter the cutting zone (Figures 1 and 6; Examiner notes the spacing between elements 35 and 45 to allow for hair to be cut);
wherein the hair receiving portion comprises a row of cut-hair-blocking members (35) comprising barrier members (45) (Figures 2 and 6; Col. 5 Lines 1-39); wherein the barrier members are configured to undergo deformation in response to force caused by hair to be cut to enable the hair to be cut to pass through the barrier members to enter the cutting zone, and to undergo little to no deformation in response to a force caused by the cut hair for preventing the cut hair from flying off; and where in the cut-hair-blocking members are contiguous to a tip of a guard blade of the cutting arrangement (Figures 2 and 6; Col. 4, Lines 31-65; Examiner notes the structural elements are capable of no deformation or at least some deformation depending upon the outside force that is directed).
Regarding claim 16, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 15 and wherein adjacent cut-hair blocking members (35) have an interspace therebetween configured to prevent the cut hair from passing through the interspace (Examiner notes the comb teeth to be dimensioned with a length and width to provide structural bounds to allow for an “interspace” therebetween preventing to some degree cut hair from passing through the interspace).
Regarding claim 17, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 16 and wherein the barrier members (45) have a brush-like structure (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 15 and wherein the adjacent cut- hair-blocking members (35) have no interspace therebetween (Figures 1 and 6; Examiner notes the hair blocking members may be connected via the bottom (36) thus providing “no interspace” between the hair blocking members).
Regarding claim 19, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 18 and wherein the barrier members have a strip-curtain-like structure (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 15 and wherein the cut-hair-blocking members further comprise shield members (36) having an interspace between adjacent shield members; the shield members are configured to undergo no or little deformation under a force caused by the hair to be cut and under a force caused by the cut hair for preventing the cut hair from flying off; the interspace between the adjacent shield members are configured to allow the hair to be cut to pass through the interspace to enter the cutting zone during use; and the barrier members are arranged within the interspace between the adjacent shield members (Figures 1 and 6; Col. 4, Lines 31-65; Examiner notes the comb teeth provide structural bounds to allow for an “interspace” between adjacent shield members);.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (U.S. Patent No. 5,185,931) in view of Andis (U.S. Patent No. 3,279,056).
Regarding claim 7, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 2, but does not provide wherein the shield members have a pitch that matches a pitch of the guard blade.
Andis teaches it is known in the art of hair clippers to variable pitch (Col. 2, Lines 27-46 and Col. 3, Lines 3-32).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue guard/blade pitch which are known to be useful for a particular hair trimming function. There are a finite number of possible pitches which pertain to a hair trimming device and allow for the hair trimming function. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try any reasonable pitch, including having the same pitch in attempt to provide an improved hair trimming function for the hair cutting apparatus, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (U.S. Patent No. 5,185,931) in view of Kammer (U.S. Patent No. 2012/0233865)).
Regarding claim 12, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 2, but does not provide further comprising a series of detachable cut-hair-blocking elements;
wherein the series of detachable cut-hair-blocking elements comprises at least a first detachable cut-hair-blocking element and a second detachable cut-hair-blocking element; wherein the first detachable cut-hair-blocking element has a first hair receiving portion that allows the hair to be cut with a first length to pass through the hair receiving portion to enter the cutting zone; wherein the second detachable cut-hair-blocking element has a second hair receiving portion that allows the hair to be cut with a second length to pass through the hair receiving portion to enter the cutting zone; wherein the first length is different from the second length; and wherein the shield members are configured such that the interspace between the adjacent shield members has a geometry that is adapted to a desired haircut length including at least one of the first length and the second length.
Kammer teaches it is known in the art of hair trimmers to provide a series of detachable cut-hair-blocking elements (Figure 2; Abstract and Paragraph 0004);
wherein the series of detachable cut-hair-blocking elements comprises at least a first detachable cut-hair-blocking element and a second detachable cut-hair-blocking element; wherein the first detachable cut-hair-blocking element has a first hair receiving portion that allows the hair to be cut with a first length to pass through the hair receiving portion to enter the cutting zone; wherein the second detachable cut-hair-blocking element has a second hair receiving portion that allows the hair to be cut with a second length to pass through the hair receiving portion to enter the cutting zone; wherein the first length is different from the second length; and wherein the shield members are configured such that the interspace between the adjacent shield members has a geometry that is adapted to a desired haircut length including at least one of the first length and the second length (Paragraph 0004 and 0006-0008 and 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Fujikawa to incorporate the teachings of Kammer to provide detachable hair guards. In doing so, it allows for various length hair trims as desired by the user.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (U.S. Patent No. 5,185,931).
Regarding claim 14, Fujikawa teaches the hair-cutting apparatus according to claim 1, but does not provide wherein a material stiffness of the barrier members is in a range from 100N/m to 1800N/m.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Fujikawa. to a material stiffness of the barrier members in a range from 100-1800N/m since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Fujikawa would not operate differently with the claimed stiffness and since the barrier members are intended to be used to cut hair the device would function appropriately having the claimed material stiffness. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the stiffness“may” be within the claimed ranges (Specification Page 4 Paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant’s response regarding the terminology of “sufficiently stiff” and “little or no“ deformation is noted buy not persuasive. While the claims are read in light of the specification, the language within the claims does not provide what can and cannot be considered “sufficiently stiff” as the claim also recites “little” or “no” deformation. As currently claimed, any known or unknown material with any known or unknown stiffness properties may be considered “sufficiently stiff” within the realm of hair cutting, and has been treated as such in the rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument noting the cutting of hair providing the force upon the barrier members, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Examiner notes that while the device may cut hair, it is also capable of cutting a variety of other materials, that could cause a force upon the device during use.
Applicant on page 3 provides “page 3, lines 13-24 (emphasis added). See also page 4, lines 33-35 (“In other words, the barrier members are less stiff than the hair to be cut, but sufficiently stiff to such that the barrier members undergo no or little deformation under a force caused by the cut hair for preventing the cut hair from flying off, i.e. impact speed and mass of hair debris, i.e. cut hair, is too low to pass through the barrier.”) (emphasis added). The Specification thus provides guidelines and examples that are sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand when barrier members are sufficiently stiff to avoid deformation when hit by cut hair”. Examiner notes that the term stiff is used, without stating what can and cannot be provided as the bounds of the force caused by the workpiece of “hair” as the type of hair is not defined but required.
Applicant’s arguments on page 5 are noted but not persuasive. Applicant provides “With regard to the adjacent cut-hair-blocking members having an interspace therebetween that is sufficiently small to prevent the cut hair from passing through the interspace, the Office Action states: “Examiner notes the interspace is capable of preventing hair from passing through.” See Office Action, p. 5. Applicant respectfully submits that this statement is inaccurate and contrary to the teachings of Fujikawa et al. The spaces between adjacent comb teeth 35A are not capable of preventing any hair (cut or uncut) from passing through”. Examiner notes that the size shape and overall material of the hair has not been claimed, or described. As such, the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function within the bounds of any known hair type, style or material. Examiner also notes Figure 2A of the specification below noting that element 29 is an interspace “sufficiently small enough to prevent the cut hair from passing through the interspace” (Page 2 of the specification).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As noted above, as the workpiece is not required, and does not have a specific size, shape or material, the prior art has the same structural elements capable of performing the claimed functions.
Applicant argues the term flexibility (Page 6, first paragraph). Examiner notes the claim merely requires the barrier members to be flexible to some degree based upon an outside force. As the bounds of what can and cannot be considered flexible have not been provided, (I are no materials, material properties or requirements for the claim) the prior art reads upon the limitation as the device is made of a material, and the material is “sufficiently flexible” to some degree such that a deformation of any degree is capable of being caused by a workpiece.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on 571-270-3818. 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 10/17/2025Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724