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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, specifically Figure 3, are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show
a cam,
as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation "connected to locking lever tab". Examiner suggests "connected to a locking lever tab".
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation "the lever tab". Examiner suggests "locking lever tab".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 10-18 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Ln 2, the limitation "a moving blade" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the element is required or not, since it is not positively recited. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean the moving blade is not a required element of the claims, and instead is recited as intended use of the blade assembly.
Regarding Claims 10-18 and 20, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the blade assembly. As previously recited in Claim 1, or Claim 20, the blade assembly is a distinct and usable device from the hair clipping appliance which is not positively recited in claims or claims they are dependent thereupon. In light of the SPECIFICATION and DRAWINGS of the INSTANT APPLICATION, Examiner has interpreted the hair clipping appliance as a separable and distinct device from the blade assembly and therefore not related to the claims of the blade assembly. Said another way, it is unclear as to how the further limitations to the hair clipping appliance affect or limit the structure of the blade assembly which is not positively connected to.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is indefinite for reciting method steps in an apparatus claim. Examiner notes that although prior art has not been used to reject this claim under either 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103, the cited prior art discloses the claimed subject matter and would be used to reject this claim if it were amended to (1) positively recite the hair clipping apparatus or remove it from the claims and (2) if the claim was amended to remove the method claimed.
Regarding Claims 11-18 the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter related to the hair clipping apparatus, which, as stated above, has not been positively recited. Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean the claimed subject matter is merely intended use of the blade assembly, as related its use with a hair clipping apparatus.
Examiner notes that although prior art has not been used to reject this claim under either 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103, the cited prior art discloses the claimed subject matter and would be used to reject this claim if it were amended to positively recite the hair clipping apparatus or remove it from the claims.
Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to either positively recite the hair clipping appliance and the relationship of the blade assembly or remove all recitations of the hair clipping appliance and its dependent elements from the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-9, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kruse (US 2020/0156271), hereinafter Kruse.
Regarding Claim 1, Kruse discloses a blade assembly (10) (Para [0034], Ln 2) comprising:
a bracket assembly (16) (Para [0036], Ln 3) that is connectable to a hair clipping appliance (202) (Para [0035], Ln 2); and
a holder assembly that is connectable to a fixed clipper blade (14) (Para [0001], Ln 2-6 and [0046], Ln 1-2), and the holder assembly being removably connectable to the bracket assembly (as illustrated in Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Kruse discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kruse further discloses the fixed clipper blade can be adjusted to a position relative to a moving blade (Para [0001], Ln 2-6) and the holder assembly can then be disconnected from the bracket assembly and then connected again to the bracket assembly positioning the fixed clipper blade in the same position relative to the moving blade when the holder assembly connects to the bracket assembly (as illustrated in Fig 4). Examiner notes nothing in the disclosure limits the number of times the elements may be disconnected from each other and reconnected to form a functional device.
Regarding Claim 3, Kruse discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kruse further discloses the bracket assembly has a blade holder (16) (Para [0036], Ln 3) with a holder body and a depression in the holder body (116) (Para 0049], Ln 1-4) that forms a cam (122) (Para [0049], in its entirety). Examiner notes the entirety of Para [0049] has been interpreted as describing the action of a rotating cam which is intended to either engage or disengage, upon rotation, to retain or free from retention, respectively, the blade holder assembly, respective to the attachment to a hair clipping appliance.
Regarding Claim 4, Kruse discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kruse further discloses the blade holder is removably connectable to the fixed clipper blade (as illustrated in Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Kruse discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kruse further discloses the bracket assembly has a blade bracket connected to a locking lever (100) (Para 0044], Ln 5-6) by a rotatable fastener (68) so that locking lever is rotatable relative to the blade bracket (Para [0046], Ln 1-3).
Regarding Claim 6, Kruse discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kruse further discloses the bracket assembly has a cut out section (116) through a bracket body that is shaped to receive a blade holder of the bracket assembly (Para 0049], Ln 1-4; as illustrated in Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Kruse discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kruse further discloses the bracket body is bent on opposite sides of a middle member to form a first side member (24) and a second side member (26) with each of the first and second side members forming a free end (as illustrated in Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Kruse discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kruse further discloses the free end of the first side member has a first ridge (28) and the free end of the second side member has a second ridge (30) with the first ridge and the second ridge extending inward towards one another (as illustrated in Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Kruse discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kruse further discloses the locking lever has locking lever arm connected to locking lever tab (as illustrated in Fig 4), so that locking lever is rotatable relative to the blade bracket between a connected position where a portion of the locking lever tab extends to overlap the cut out section, and a disconnected position where the locking lever tab does not overlap and is outside of cut out section (Para [0046], Ln 1-3).
Regarding Claim 19, Kruse discloses a bracket assembly (10) (Para [0034], Ln 2) comprising:
a blade bracket (16) (Para [0036], Ln 3) that is connectable to a hair clipping appliance (202) (Para [0035], Ln 2); and
a locking lever (100) (Para 0044], Ln 5-6) connected to the blade bracket by a rotatable fastener (68) so that the locking lever is rotatable relative to the blade bracket (Para [0046], Ln 1-3).
Regarding Claim 20, Kruse discloses a holder assembly (10) (Para [0034], Ln 2) comprising:
a blade holder (16) (Para [0036], Ln 3) with a holder body and a depression (116) (Para 0049], Ln 1-4) in the holder body that forms a cam (122) (Para [0049], in its entirety), the blade holder being connectable to a fixed clipper blade (14) (Para [0001], Ln 2-6 and , [0046], Ln 1-2), the blade holder being removably connectable to a bracket assembly, and the bracket assembly being removably connectable to a hair clipping appliance (202) (Para [0001], Ln 11-13 and [0035], Ln 2). Examiner notes the entirety of Para [0049] has been interpreted as describing the action of a rotating cam which is intended to either engage or disengage, upon rotation, to retain or free from retention, respectively, the blade holder assembly, respective to the attachment to a hair clipping appliance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0094195 to Phoon, et alia teaches a blade assembly being connectable to a hair clipping appliance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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 at (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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights