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 and 9 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).
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 between adjacent teeth, 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 substantially 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 substantially straight and extend along said longitudinal axis of said stationary blade and 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, blade, said moving blade including a first longitudinal axis and said stationary 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 between adjacent teeth, wherein at least one of said teeth depends on both the first root and the second root, 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 transverse to said longitudinal axes of said stationary blade and said moving blade,
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 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 substantially straight and extends along said longitudinal axis of said stationary blade and said longitudinal axis of said moving blade.
See Figs. 1-4.
As to the limitation “wherein a bottom edge of at least one of said two different roots is substantially straight and extends along said longitudinal axis of said stationary blade and said longitudinal axis of said moving blade”, the term “substantially” is a relative term and would include a slightly curve section. Furthermore, a portion of the bottom edge of the movable blade 24 is straight and extends along its longitudinal axis as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
700
981
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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) and Marcel (2,118,850) 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) and Marcel (2,118,850) 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 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to the limitation “wherein a bottom edge of at least one of said two different roots is substantially straight and extend along said longitudinal axis of said stationary blade and said longitudinal axis of said moving blade”, the term “substantially” is a relative term and thus includes slightly curve. The bottom edge of the movable blade in Melton has a straight or substantially straight section as shown in the annotated Fig. 3 above. Therefore, Melton reads on this limitation.
As to Chien and Marcel, they are applied to teach a hair clipper having a blade with different root lengths not for the straight bottom edge of the roots.
Conclusion
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