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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, Ln 9 & 13, the limitation "acute angle". Examiner suggests, in Ln 9, "a first acute angle", and in Ln 13, "a second acute angle".
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 1-17 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 1:
Ln 8, the limitation "inclined forward end portion" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes a "portion". In order to advance prosecution and examine the claims, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any part of the claimed apparatus, which exists at or near the extreme limit of the apparatus, in the direction of use;
Ln 9, the limitation "skin of a user" fails to positively recite the user and therefore the claims, as best understood, cannot be understood to require the user or not. In order to advance prosecution and examine the claims, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the user is not required;
Ln 12, the limitation "characterized in that" fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claims, therefore the claims cannot be understood as distinct and novel in view of the prior art. In order to advance prosecution and examine the claims, Examiner has interpreted the limitation as intended use and meaning "the tooth tip is configured to intersect a virtual plane at the cutting surface";
Ln 15, the limitation "the tooth tip touches said virtual plane" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly how a material object may contact a virtual object. In order to advance prosecution and examine the claims, Examiner has interpreted the limitation as intended use and meaning the "the plane of the tooth tip is configured to intersect said virtual plane".
Regarding Claims 1, 18-19, Ln 2, the limitation "comb–like" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly how much "like" a comb an element must be in order to satisfy the limitation. In order to examiner the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any element which would be recognized by a skilled Artisan as having a structure resembling a comb.
Regarding Claims 13 & 16:
Ln 1, the limitation "the tip angle" lacks antecedent basis in the claims;
Ln 1, the limitation "the wedge angle" lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding Claim 15:
Ln 1, the limitation "the wedge angle" lacks antecedent basis in the claims;
Ln 1, the limitation "the opening angle" lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding Claim 16, Ln 2, the limitation "the opening angle" lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding Claim 20:
Ln 13 and Ln 17, the limitation "Cutter system according to anyone of the preceding claims" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly which of the preceding claims Claim 20 depends from, in accordance with US Patent Practice. In order to advance prosecution and examine the claims, Examiner has interpreted the limitations to mean all Claim 20 limitations depend from Claim 19;
Ln 26 & 28, the limitation ""the opening angle" lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H. C. Wright, et alia (US 1,646,470), hereinafter Wright, as evidenced by Chen, et alia (US 2007/0214654), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 1, Wright discloses a cutter system for an electric shaver and/or trimmer (Col 1, Ln 1-5; as illustrated in at least Fig 1), comprising
a pair of cooperating cutter blades (A), (B) each having at least one row of comb-like cutting teeth (as illustrated in at least Fig 1).
Wright further discloses said cutting teeth each having pairs of lateral cutting edges tapering towards a tooth tip (as illustrated in at least Fig 1),
wherein the tooth tips of at least the movable cutter blade are provided with a flattened, beveled tip surface (as illustrated in at least Fig 1), and
wherein a skin contact surface of the cutter system (Examiner has interpreted the disclosure of Wright to mean the reverse surface of the cutter and comb, as illustrated in at least Fig 1, is meant to contact the skin surface),
has an inclined forward end portion (as illustrated in Fig 7) for guiding the cutter blades in the region of said tooth tips over the skin of a user (Examiner notes the forward inclined edge would be capable of guiding the tooth tip in the direction of use, and would be recognized by a skilled Artisan to be configured for that purpose)
AND
has an inclined forward end portion defining an acute angle to said cutting surface (as illustrated in Fig 7).
Wright is not explicit to a stationary cutter blade, however such stationary cutter blades, commonly known as combs, and disclosed by Wright as such (Col 1, Ln 32), are well known in the art, as evidenced by Chen (Para [0004], Ln 5-6).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tooth form, as disclosed by Wright, to include a stationary cutter blade, however such stationary cutter blades, commonly known as combs, as evidenced by Chen, in order to facilitate improved cutting action.
Wright further discloses the other one of said cutter blades is a movable cutter blade (Col 2, Ln 66-67), and
movable relative to said stationary cutter blade in a cutting direction along a cutting surface defined between said cooperating cutter blades (Col 2, Ln 86-87),
said skin contact surface being defined by a surface of said stationary cutter blade facing away from said movable cutter blade (Examiner again notes that the disclosure of Wright is interpreted, as represented and illustrated by the drawings, to be that claimed),
characterized in that said flattened, beveled tip surface is inclined to a virtual plane at an acute angle (examiner notes that the angle between the flattened, beveled tip surface appears to be acute in every figure illustrated) said virtual plane extending parallel to said cutting direction (Examiner has interpreted the disclosure of Wright to have a virtual plane, namely the section cutting plan 4–4, as illustrated in Fig 2, and that this plane may be moved left to right in the figure, without materially changing the observer's point of view)
AND
perpendicular to said skin contact surface so the tooth tip touches said virtual plane only at the cutting surface with a substantially wedgeshaped void between the flattened beveled tip surface and said virtual plane (Examiner has interpreted the gap between the teeth, as illustrated in Fig 2, to be a substantially wedgeshaped void).
Examiner notes the limitation requiring an "inclined forward end portion" is broad, using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and therefore has been interpreted as being an element which, not being parallel to the cutting plane, exists at an acute angle to the cutting plane.
Examiner notes the limitation requiring a "virtual plane" is made without structural reference to any positively recited structural element. Therefore, Examiner has interpreted this limitation to be arbitrary and that any plane which may reasonably interpreted by a skilled Artisan as being both approximately "extending parallel to said cutting direction and perpendicular to said skin contact surface" meet the claimed limitations. If Applicant does not wish this interpretation to be implied or inferred, Examiner suggests Applicant amends the claims to make clear reference(s) to positively recited structural element(s) in the claims.
Regarding Claim 2, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses said acute angle of inclination of the flattened beveled tip surface to the virtual plane ranges from about 10° to about 40° or about 10° to about 20°. Examiner notes that the angles illustrated in the disclosure of Wright appear to be substantially those claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses said tooth tips of the movable cutter blade, in cross-sectional planes parallel to the cutting surface, define linear contours parallel to the cutting direction (as illustrated in any of the cross sectional views).
Regarding Claim 4, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses the cutting teeth of the movable cutter blade, at the tooth tips, define a pyramid-like contour with three inclined, planar surfaces joining each other, one of said inclined, planar surfaces being formed by the flattened, beveled tip surface and the other two inclined, planar surfaces being formed by the lateral cutting edges of the cutting tooth (as illustrated in at least Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses said flattened, beveled tip surface is substantially planar with an angular transition to each of said lateral cutting edges (as illustrated in at least Fig 2). Wright is not explicit to an angular transition having a radius of curvature dimension, however such a dimension is not critically recited and Examiner notes would be a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation having as the goal to refine and optimize the tooth form.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tooth form, as disclosed by Wright, to include an angular transition to each of said lateral cutting edges having a radius of curvature of less than about 50 µm or less than about 25 µm or less than about 10 µmm, in order to optimize the tooth form for maximum efficiency.
Regarding Claim 6, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses said cutting teeth have a tip width ranging from about 1/6 to about 2/3 or about 1/6 to about 1/3 of a rear width of the cutting teeth at a rear end of the lateral cutting edges which extend from said rear end to the tooth tip along a straight line (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 1, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 7, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses said cutting teeth have a tip width ranging from about 1/9 to about 1/3 or about 1/6 to about 1/4 of a toothing pitch which is the distance from a center of a tooth to the center of a next tooth (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 1, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 8, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses said acute angle of the inclined forward end portion of the skin contact surface to the cutting surface ranges from about 5° to about 25° or from about 10° to about 20° and said acute an surface ranges from about 5° to about 25° or from about 10° to about 20° and said acute angle of the flattened beveled tip surface to the virtual plane ranges from about 10° to about 30° or about 10° to about 20° (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 7, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 9, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses a tip angle between the flattened, beveled tip surface and the cutting surface ranges from about 30° to about 70° or about 50° to about 65° (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 6, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 10, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses said flattened beveled tip surfaces of the cutting teeth of the movable cutter blade are inclined to the forward end portion of the skin contact surface at an angle ranging from about 50° to about 85° or about 65° to about 85° or about 75° to about 85° (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 1, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 11, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright is not explicit to a maximum tip width dimension, however such a dimension is not critically recited and Examiner notes would be a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation having as the goal to refine and optimize the tooth form.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tooth form, as disclosed by Wright, to include said flattened beveled tip surface defines a maximum tip width ranging from about 150µm to about 400µm or about 200µm to about 300µm, in order to optimize the tooth form for maximum efficiency.
Regarding Claim 12, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses said lateral cutting edges, when considering a cross sectional view transverse to a longitudinal tooth axis of the respective cutting tooth, have a wedge-shaped configuration with a wedge angle ranging from about 35° to about 60° or about 40° to about 55° or about 45° to about 50° (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 1, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 13, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses a sum of the tip angle and the wedge angle is less than about 120° or less than about 110°, and/or ranges from about 90° to about 120° or from about 100° to about 110° (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 8, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 14, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses an opening angle defined by pairs of cutting edges of neighboring cutting teeth facing each other, ranges from about 10° to about 30° or about 15° to about 25° or about 20° to about 25° (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 2, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 15, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses a sum of the wedge angle and the opening angle is less than about 80° or less than about 75°, and/or ranges from about 60° to about 80° or about 65° to about 75° (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 2, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 16, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses a sum of the tip angle and the wedge angle and the opening angle is less than about 150° or less than about 140°, and/or ranges from about 110° to about 150° or about 120° to about 140° (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 2, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 17, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses electric shaver and/or trimmer, comprising a cutter system (Col 1, Ln 1-7).
Regarding Claim 18, Wright discloses a cutter system for an electric shaver and/or trimmer (Col 1, Ln 1-5), comprising a pair of cooperating cutter blades each having at least one row of comb-like cutting teeth (Col 1, Ln 1-5; as illustrated in at least Fig 1).
Wright is not explicit to a stationary cutter blade, however such stationary cutter blades, commonly known as combs, and disclosed by Wright as such (Col 1, Ln 32), are well known in the art, as evidenced by Chen (Para [0004], Ln 5-6).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tooth form, as disclosed by Wright, to include a stationary cutter blade, however such stationary cutter blades, commonly known as combs, as evidenced by Chen, in order to facilitate improved cutting action.
Wright further discloses the other one of said cutter blades is a movable cutter blade movable relative to said stationary cutter blade in a cutting direction along a cutting surface defined between said cooperating cutter blades (Col 1, Ln 3 & Col 2, Ln 87-88), said cutting teeth each having pairs of lateral cutting edges tapering towards a tooth tip (as illustrated in at least Fig 1), wherein the tooth tips of at least the movable cutter blade are provided with a flattened, beveled tip surface (as illustrated in at least Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 19, Wright discloses a cutter system for an electric shaver and/or trimmer, comprising a pair of cooperating cutter blades each having at least one row of comb-like cutting teeth (Col 1, Ln 50-53; as illustrated in at least Fig 1).
Wright is not explicit to a stationary cutter blade, however such stationary cutter blades, commonly known as combs, and disclosed by Wright as such (Col 1, Ln 32), are well known in the art, as evidenced by Chen (Para [0004], Ln 5-6).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tooth form, as disclosed by Wright, to include a stationary cutter blade, however such stationary cutter blades, commonly known as combs, as evidenced by Chen, in order to facilitate improved cutting action.
Wright further discloses the other one of said cutter blades is a movable cutter blade movable relative to said stationary cutter blade in a cutting direction along a cutting surface defined between said cooperating cutter blades (Col 1, Ln 3 & Col 2, Ln 87-88), said cutting teeth each having pairs of lateral cutting edges tapering towards a tooth tip (as illustrated in at least Fig 1), wherein the tooth tips of at least the movable cutter blade are provided with a flattened, beveled tip surface (as illustrated in at least Fig 7) wherein the flattened, beveled tip surface extends to the cutting surface of the cutting teeth with a tip angle (P) between the flattened, beveled tip surface and the cutting surface ranging from 30° to 70° or 50° to 65°, wherein said lateral cutting edges, when considering a cross sectional view transverse to a longitudinal tooth axis of the respective cutting tooth, have a wedge-shaped configuration with a wedge angle (y) ranging from 35° to 60° or 40° to 55° or 45° to 50° and wherein a sum of the tip angle (P) and the wedge angle (y) is less than 120° or less than 110°, and/or ranges from 90° to 120° or from 100° to 110° (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig 2, the tooth form is substantially that claimed).
Regarding Claim 20, Wright discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Wright further discloses a cutter system for an electric shaver and/or trimmer further comprising the features of at least any one of the following:
wherein said tooth tips of the movable cutter blade, in cross-sectional planes parallel to the cutting surface, define linear contours parallel to the cutting direction and/or,
wherein the cutting teeth of the movable cutter blade, at the tooth tips, define a pyramidlike contour with three inclined, planar surfaces joining each other, one of said inclined, planar surfaces being formed by the flattened, beveled tip surface and the other two inclined, planar surfaces being formed by the lateral cutting edges of the cutting tooth and /or,
wherein said flattened, beveled tip surface is substantially planar with an angular transition to each of said lateral cutting edges, said angular transition having a radius of curvature of less than 50 µm or less than 25 µm or less than 10 µm and / or,
cutter system according to anyone of the preceding claims, wherein said cutting teeth have a tip width (tw) ranging from 1/6 to 2/3 or 1/6 to 1/3 of a rear width (tr) of the cutting teeth at a rear end of the lateral cutting edges which extend from said rear end to the tooth tip along a straight line and /or,
cutter system according to anyone of the preceding claims, wherein said cutting teeth have a tip width (tw) ranging from 1/9 to 1/3 or 1/6 to 1/4 of a toothing pitch which is the distance from a center of a tooth to the center of a next tooth and /or,
wherein said flattened beveled tip surfaces of the cutting teeth of the movable cutter blade are inclined to the forward end portion of the skin contact surface at an angle (8) ranging from 50° to 85° or 65° to 85° or 75° to 85° and / or,
wherein said flattened beveled tip surface defines a maximum tip width ranging from 150µm to 400µm or 200µm to 300µm and / or,
wherein an opening angle (a) defined by pairs of cutting edges of neighboring cutting teeth facing each other, ranges from 10° to 30° or 15° to 25° or 20° to 25° and/ or,
wherein a sum of the wedge angle (y) and the opening angle (a) is less than 80° or less than 75°, and/or ranges from 60° to 80° or 65° to 75° and/or,
wherein a sum of the tip angle (P) and the wedge angle (y) and the opening angle (a) is less than 150° or less than 140°, and/or ranges from 110° to 150° or 120° to 140° and / or,
wherein said cutter system is part of an electric shaver and/or trimmer and is optionally configured in accordance with one of the preceding claims.
Examiner notes that the tooth form, as disclosed by Wright, is substantially that claimed, as illustrated in the combination of figures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,556,324 to Torres teaches a cutter system for an electric trimmer.
2008 0209741 Chen, et alia teaches a cutter system for an electric trimmer.
2014 0115901 Liao teaches a cutter system for an electric trimmer.
2016 0101530 Sablatschan et alia teaches a cutter system for an electric trimmer.
2016 0229070 Yao teaches a cutter system for an electric trimmer.
2020 0254636 Eijkelkamp, et alia teaches a cutter system for an electric trimmer.
2022 0143850 Eijkelkamp, et alia teaches a cutter system for an electric trimmer.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724