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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
The structure allowing for the vacuum to be selectively connectable and disconnect able from the battery, of claims 1 and 10
The turbine driven system of the vacuum, of claims 5 and 14
The vacuum pump of the vacuum, of claims 6 and 15
The separate actuator that controls actuation of the vacuum, of claims 8 and 17
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 1-18 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.
With regards to claims 1 and 10, the phrase “configured to provide increased operating performance of the clipper head when actuated by a user” is unclear. It is unclear what defines the operating performance as increased? What is this performance increased in relation to? Earlier in the claim, the motor is disclosed as operating at a first level of performance and as written, the boost actuator performance is unrelated to the first level performance. Also, it is unclear what structure allows for the boost actuator to be configured to provide increased operating performance of the clipper head. As written, the boost actuator does not have a structural or electrical connection with the motor which is not supported. In order for the boost actuator to be able to increase performance of the clipper head, the claim needs to define a structural relationship between the boost actuator any necessary claimed structures so that the functions are able to take place.
With regards to claims 1 and 10, the phrase “vacuum…being selectively connectable and disconnectable from the battery” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for connection to the battery and disconnection from the battery? Is this limitation trying to disclose that the vacuum can be powered on and off? If this limitation is trying to disclose the vacuum can be powered on and off, what structure powers the vacuum on and off? Does the power actuator turn the vacuum on and off? Does this limitation mean the battery is removable from the clipper where connecting/removing the battery defines the connection and disconnection relationship with the vacuum?
With regards to claims 1 and 10, it is unclear what can and cannot be an operating condition of the electric clipper. Also, it is unclear if the “a particular operating condition” on line 18 (claim 1) represents the same or a different condition than the “operating condition” on line 16 (claim 1). As written, there is an operating condition and a separate particular operating condition. It is also unclear if either of these conditions are related to the first level of performance or the operating performance.
With regards to claims 1 and 10, the phrase “sensor module that detects an operating condition of the clipper and that automatically changes a level of power being provided to the clipper head” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for the module to automatically changes a level of power provided to the head. As written, the module has no structural relationship with the motor which controls the power. What structure allows for the module to change the output of the motor?
With regards to claims 1 and 10, the phrase “sensor module” is unclear. What structure of the clipper incorporates the module?
With regards to claims 3 and 12, the phrase “at least one boost actuator” is only 1 actuator until it is further defined as being more than 1 actuator. Claims 3 and 12 do not properly disclose a second actuator. The claim needs to disclose that the “at least one boost actuator is two boost actuators and another one of the two boost actuators is located…”. Also, the phrases “both opposing sides” and “a corresponding boost actuator” do not reference back to the original disclosures and create antecedent basis issues. It is unclear if the “increase operating performance” is the same or a different performance than the performance disclosed in claim 1. As written, the claim 3 performance is different than the claim 1 performance and that does not appear to be supported.
With regards to claims 5 and 14, the phrase “turbine driven system” is unclear. What structure defines this system? The specification fails to provide any insight on the structure that defines the turbine driven system.
With regards to claims 6 and 15, the phrase “vacuum pump” is unclear. What structure defines the pump? The specification fails to provide any insight on the structure that defines the pump.
With regards to claims 7 and 16, the phrase “the vacuum is directly coupled to operation of the electric clipper” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by “operation of the clipper”. Claims 1 and 10 disclose a motor and, as written, the vacuum does not have a structural or electrical relationship with the motor that allows for the vacuum to operate with the motor that drives the clipper head.
With regards to claims 8 and 17, the phrase “a separate actuator that controls actuation of the vacuum” is unclear. What structure defines the separate actuator? The specification fails to provide any insight on the structure that defines the separate actuator and the relationship this separate actuator has with the vacuum.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al. (2003/0131480) in view of McCambridge et al. (6,684,511) and Krans et al. (10,131,061).
With regards to claims 1 and 10, Leung et al. disclose the method/apparatus including providing an electric clipper (2) having a body having an exterior surface (Fig 1), at least one battery disposed within the body (60, paragraph [0029]), a motor (12) disposed within the body (paragraph [0023]), a clipper head (6) operably coupled to the body (Fig 1) that is powered by the motor and that is configured to clip hair (paragraph [0005]), a power actuator (18) integrated with the exterior surface of the body (Fig. 2) that is configured to selectively connect and disconnect the at least one battery and the motor to thereby power on and off the motor in response to corresponding actuations by a user such that when the motor is powered on by the power actuator the motor operates at a first level of performance (paragraph [0024]), and at least one boost actuator (20) integrated with the exterior surface of the body (Fig. 2) and configured to provide increased operating performance of the clipper head when actuated by a user (paragraph [0033]).
With regards to claims 2 and 11, Leung et al. disclose the body of the electric clipper has at least two opposing sides (Fig. 1) and wherein the at least one boost actuator (20) is located on a first one of the two opposing sides (Fig. 1).
However, with regards to claims 1, 5, 7-10, 14, and 16-18, Leung et al. fail to disclose a vacuum at least partially disposed within the body and being selectively connectable and disconnectable from the battery, the vacuum has a turbine driven system, operation of the vacuum is directly coupled to operation of the electric clipper, a separate actuator that controls actuation of the vacuum, and the vacuum has a vacuumed matter storage bin.
McCambridge et al. teach it is known in the at art of electric clippers to incorporate a vacuum at least partially disposed within the body (36, 190, Fig. 2) and being selectively connectable and disconnectable from the battery (column 10 lines 13-17 and column 4 lines 38-45 teaches a non–rechargeable battery which is interpreted to mean it is removable and therefore connectable and disconnectable from the electric clipper and therefore also the vacuum), the vacuum has a turbine driven system (190) the vacuum is directly coupled to operation of the electric clipper (column 10 lines 13-17), a separate actuator that controls actuation of the vacuum (column 10 lines 17-18, in order for the “separate fan motor” to be powered on, a separate actuator would be needed), and the vacuum has a vacuumed matter storage bin (188, column 10 lines 29-40). Such a modification allows for the clipper to collect hair clippings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Leung et al. with the vacuum, as taught by McCambridge et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claims 1, 4, 10, and 13, Leung et al. fail to disclose a sensor module that detects an operating condition of the clipper and that automatically changes a level of power being provided to the clipper head in response to detecting a particular operating condition and the operating condition is power.
Krans et al. teach it is known in the art of clippers (Fig. 7) to incorporate a sensor module that detects an operating condition of the clipper (7, 8, 9) and that automatically changes a level of power being provided to the clipper head in response to detecting a particular operating condition (column 5 line 57 – column 6 line 12) and the operating condition is power (column 5 line 57 – column 6 line 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Leung et al. with the sensor module, as taught by Krans et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claims 3 and 12, Leung et al. in view of McCambridge et al. and Krans et al. fail to disclose another boost actuator located on a second one of the opposing sides such that both opposing sides have a boost actuator that each independently provide increased operating performance of the clipper.
Leung is not explicit to more than one boost actuator, however, having provided one boost actuator, it would have been well within one’s technical skill to provide a second, for the ease of use by both right- and left-handed users, or in order to actuate the boost with the electric clipper in more than one operating position. It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method/clipper Leung et al. in view of McCambridge et al. and Krans et al. to include another of the at least one boost actuator is located on a second one of the two opposing sides, such that both opposing sides of the body have a corresponding boost actuator that each independently, when actuated by a user, provide increased operating performance of the clipper head. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Leung et al. in view of McCambridge et al. and Krans et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3 and 12. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al. (2003/0131480) in view of McCambridge et al. (6,684,511) and Krans et al. (10,131,061) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of RU 2106791.
With regards to claims 6 and 15, Leung et al. in view of McCambridge et al. and Krans et al. fail to disclose the vacuum has a pump.
RU 2106791 teaches it is known in the art of hair collection devices of hair cutters (included machine translation, first line under the heading Description) to incorporate a vacuum pump (included machine translation, lines 24-26 under the heading Description). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Leung et al. in view of McCambridge et al. and Krans et al. with the pump, as taught by RU 2106791, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to art rejection of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 37 CFR 1.83(a) disclosures the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. While the rectangle box is fine for the broad vacuum disclosure, the specifics of the vacuum need to be shown. No where in the specification does it list these items as conventional or prior art.
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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D 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.
10 August 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights