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 (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, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton (2009/0126201) in view of Chien (2015/0202782) and Marcel (2,118,850), Yanosaka et al. (2004/0016128), hereinafter Yanosaka, and Heckman et al. (2012/0030950), hereafter Heckman.
Regarding claim 1, Melton teaches a bladeset operationally connected to a hair clipper substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, the bladeset comprising:
a stationary blade 18 and a moving blade 24 configured for reciprocating laterally relative to said stationary blade, said stationary blade includes a first longitudinal axis and said moving blade includes a second a longitudinal axis, said first longitudinal axis and said second longitudinal axis each extending through opposing sides of said stationary blade and said moving blade;
at least one of said stationary blade and said moving blade 24 including a base and a plurality of teeth 26 extending from said base and having only two different roots, said the base having a bottommost edge including a length defined between opposing sides of said at least one of said stationary blade and said moving blade, wherein the entire length of said bottommost edge is straight, and wherein said two different roots alternate across the length, and at least a first one of the teeth extends to a first point from said base and at least a second one of the teeth extends to a second point from said base, wherein said first point and said second point are different, wherein a first set of said teeth have first ends that form a first cutting line for cutting hair and a second set of said teeth have second ends that for a second cutting line for cutting hair, said first set of teeth and said second set of teeth accounting for all of said teeth of said stationary blade or said moving blade, and wherein said first cutting line and said second cutting line are spaced from each other, and
wherein a distance of one of said two different roots from said bottommost edge of said base and a distance of the other of said two different roots from said bottommost edge of said base are different; and
wherein a bottom edge of at least one of said two different roots is straight and an entirely of said bottom edge extend along at least one of said first longitudinal axis of said stationary blade and second said longitudinal axis of said moving blade.
See Figs. 1-4.
Regarding claim 9, Melton teaches a hair clipper comprising:
a clipper housing 14 defining a longitudinal axis and a cutting end; and
a clipper bladeset operationally connected to said cutting end and including a stationary blade 18 and a moving blade 24 configured for reciprocating laterally relative to said stationary blade, said stationary blade including a first longitudinal axis and saidmoving blade including a second longitudinal axis, said first longitudinal axis and said second longitudinal axis each extending through opposing sides of said stationary blade and said moving blade;
at least one of said stationary blade and said moving blade 24 including a base and a plurality of teeth 26 extending from said base and having only two different roots, wherein at least one of said teeth depends on both the first root and the second root, said base having a bottommost edge including a length defined between the opposing sides of said at least one of said stationary blade and said moving blade, wherein the entire length of said bottommost edge is straight, and wherein said two different roots alternate across the length,
wherein a first set of said teeth have first ends that form a first cutting line for cutting hair and a second set of said teeth have second ends that for a second cutting line for cutting hair, said first set of teeth and said second set of teeth accounting for all of said teeth of said stationary blade or said moving blade, wherein said first cutting line and said second cutting line are spaced from each other; and
wherein a distance of one of said two different roots from said bottommost edge of said base and a distance of the other of said two different roots from said bottommost edge of said base are different, and
wherein a bottom edge of at least one of said two different roots is straight and an entirety of said bottom edge extends along at least one of said first longitudinal axis of said stationary blade and said second longitudinal axis of said moving blade.
See Figs. 1-4.
A-Melton does not teach the root having different lengths.
Chien teaches a hair clipper including a blade 1 having a plurality of different slots (3, 4, 5) for cutting hair of different lengths. See Fig. 5 and para. [0002].
Marcel teaches a hair clipper hair clipper including a blade 3 having only two different roots between adjacent teeth. See Fig. 3.
Therefore, it would having obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the stationary blade or the moving blade in Melton having the roots with only different lengths for cutting hair of two different lengths as taught by Chien and Marcel.
Furthermore, to make the blades having two different root lengths based on the teaching of Chien alone is an obvious matter of device choice since it depends on a person reference.
B-Melton does not teach the bottom edge of the roots being fully straight.
Yanosaka teaches blades of a hair trimmer having roots with fully straight bottom edge. See Figs. 1 and 4.
The bottom edge of the roots having curved corners as taught by Melton and fully straight edge as taught by Yanosaka are art equivalents in the hair trimming art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the bottom edge of the roots in Melton having fully straight edge since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
C-Melton does not teach the bottommost edge of the base being fully straight.
Heckman teaches blades of a hair trimmer including a blade 132 with a base having bottommost edge fully straight.
The base of the blade having a fully straight bottommost edge and the base of the blade having curved or chambered corners at the bottommost edge are art equivalents in the hair trimming art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to the base of the blade having a fully straight bottommost edge since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Melton does not teach a recess between the bottom of the roots and the bottommost edge of the base.
Heckman teaches a blade 132 have a recess between a bottom of roots of a base and a bottommost edge of the base. See Fig. 2. The recess reduces the contact between two cutting blades which reduces heat generated by friction on the blades.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the blades in Melton a recess between the bottom of the roots and the bottommost edge of the base as taught by Heckman to reduce heat generated by frictions on the blades.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton (2009/0126201) in view of Chien (2015/0202782), Marcel (2,118,850), Yanosaka et al. (2004/0016128), hereinafter Yanosaka, and Heckman et al. (2012/0030950), hereafter Heckman as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Krause (2017/0015010).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, the modified blade in Melton teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for each of the teeth include a first cutting edge and a second cutting edge, the cutting edges forming an angle relative to a vertical line extending transversely from the base, wherein the angles of the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge are different.
Krause teaches a hair clipper including teeth having a first cutting edge 34 and a second cutting edge 36, the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge forming an angle relative to a vertical line extending transversely from a base, wherein the angles of the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge are different. See Fig. 5.
The non-symmetrical cutting edges as taught by Krause and the parallel cutting edges as taught by Melton are art equivalents in the hair clipper art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make each cutting tooth in Melton having non-symmetrical cutting edges as taught by Krause since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton (2009/0126201) in view of Chien (2015/0202782), Marcel (2,118,850), Yanosaka et al. (2004/0016128), hereinafter Yanosaka, and Heckman et al. (2012/0030950), hereafter Heckman as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Williams (7,762,000).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Melton teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for two cutting edges of each tooth symmetrically arranged with respect to a vertical line.
Williams teaches a blade set 18 having cutting teeth, each cutting tooth having two cutting edges symmetrically arranged with respect to a vertical line. See Fig. 1.
The parallel cutting edges as taught by Melton and the symmetrical cutting edges as taught by Williams are art equivalents in the hair clipper art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make each cutting tooth in Melton having two symmetrical cutting edges as taught by Williams since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to the straight bottom edge of the roots, Yanosaka is introduced to teach the bottom edge of the roots being fully straight.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to the bottommost edge of the base being fully straight, Heckman is introduced to teach the bottom edge of the base being fully straight.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to a recess between the roots and the bottommost edge of the base, Heckman is introduced to teach a recess between the roots and the bottommost edge of the base. Furthermore, Melton reference is cited in form PTO-892 to teach this limitation.
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 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
Prosecution Insights