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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/5/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the objection to the Drawings previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/6/2025.
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)(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, 2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Piwaron (US 20080282550).
Regarding claim 1, Piwaron discloses a blade hinge assembly (see figs. 2 and 4), comprising: an inner blade comprising blade teeth (upper blade 52 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 80; see fig. 4); an outer blade comprising blade teeth oriented parallel to the inner blade teeth (lower blade 48 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 76 and forward cutting edge 76 is oriented parallel to forward cutting edge 80; see figs. 2, 4, and paragraph [0022]) and configured to facilitate cutting when the inner blade oscillates over the outer blade (upper blade 52 oscillates in the direction of arrow 53 relative to lower blade 48; see figs. 8-9 and paragraph [0030]); a mounting bracket (support member 60; see fig. 4) comprising tabs (see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the mounting bracket coupled to an inner surface of the inner blade and configured to press the inner blade against the outer blade (see fig. 2 and paragraph [0030]); and a metallic stamping (biasing member 72; see figs. 2 and 4) coupled to the inner surface of the inner blade and extending through an opening in the mounting bracket (an end of biasing member 72 extends through the opening of support member 60 to couple to upper blade 52; see figs. 2 and 4), the opening positioned adjacent to the tabs (the opening within support member 60 is adjacent to the tabs; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the metallic stamping comprising snap tabs (see annotated portion of fig. 4 below) configured to couple to the tabs of the mounting bracket (the snap tabs of biasing member 72 couple to the tabs of support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below and fig. 2), wherein the snap tabs couple with tabs to generate an adjustable tensile force that pulls the mounting bracket away from the inner blade (when the snap tabs of biasing member 72 are coupled with the tabs of support member 60, actuation of biasing member 72 in a rearward direction towards tab 144 will cause biasing member 72 to lift, thus pulling support member 60 away from upper blade 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the metallic stamping is press fit into the mounting bracket (biasing member 72 is snapped into the tabs of support member 60 and protrusions which hold it in place; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 6, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the snap tab on an end of the metallic stamping extends beyond the mounting bracket (the snap tabs of biasing member 72 extend beyond support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above), the snap tab configured to provide a surface to adjust the force between the metallic stamping and mounting bracket and thereby adjust the tensile force between the inner blade and outer blade (the surface of the snap tabs which abuts the tabs of support member 60 allows for variance in tensile force which allows adjustment of the blades; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph 0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the snap tabs of the metallic stamping extend through the mounting bracket (the snap tabs of biasing member 72 fits into grooves located on support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) and a base of the metallic stamping is coupled to the inner blade (see annotated portion of fig. 4 above), wherein changing an offset measured from the base to the snap tabs of the metallic stamping proportionally changes the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade (changing the length of biasing member 72 would result in a change in the force it can apply).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550) in view of Ring (DE 102008031135).
Regarding claim 3, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose wherein the metallic stamping is molded into the mounting bracket.
Ring discloses wherein the metallic stamping is molded into the mounting bracket (spring element 21 can be made of a molded part; see pg. 5, paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Ring to make the metallic stamping molded into the mounting bracket. As shown by the disclosure of Ring, inclusion of a molded spring is known within the art and thus the spring of Ring could be substituted for Piwaron’s biasing member without changing the overall function of the device.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550).
Regarding claim 4, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the snap tab increases the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade by 5% or more (actuation of biasing member 72 in a forward direction opposite tab 144 will cause biasing member 72 to press down, thus pressing upper blade 52 and lower blade 48 together and increasing the force; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron wherein the snap tab increases the tensile force by 5% or more because it would be routine optimization of a result-effective variable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to perform routine experimentation in order to find the optimal amount of force that adjusts the blades without causing damage. Further, there appears to be no criticality placed on the range.
Regarding claim 5, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the snap tab decreases the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade by 5% or more (actuation of biasing member 72 in a rearward direction towards tab 144 will cause biasing member 72 to lift, thus pulling support member 60 away from upper blade 52 and decrease the force between upper blade 52 and lower blade 48; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron wherein the snap tab decreases the tensile force by 5% or more because it would be routine optimization of a result-effective variable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to perform routine experimentation in order to find the optimal amount of force that adjusts the blades without causing damage. Further, there appears to be no criticality placed on the range.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550) in view of Jungnickel (CN 103703668).
Regarding claim 7, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose wherein the metallic stamping is brazed onto the inner surface of the inner blade.
Jungnickel discloses wherein the metallic stamping is brazed onto the inner surface of the inner blade (springs can be affixed through braze welding; see paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Jungnickel to braze the metallic stamping onto the inner blade. It is known in the art and similar arts, as evidenced by Jungnickel, to affix springs via brazing, fasteners, etc. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply the known technique of Jungnickel (brazing) to the spring of Piwaron in order to achieve the predictable result of a metallic stamping brazed onto the inner blade.
Regarding claim 8, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose wherein fasteners fasten the inner blade to the metallic stamping.
Jungnickel discloses fasteners that fasten the inner blade to the metallic stamping (springs can be affixed using fasteners; see paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Jungnickel to use fasteners to affix the metallic stamping onto the inner blade. It is known in the art and similar arts, as evidenced by Jungnickel, to affix springs via brazing, fasteners, etc. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply the known technique of Jungnickel (use of fasteners) to the spring of Piwaron in order to achieve the predictable result of a metallic stamping fastened onto the inner blade.
Claims 10-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550) in view of Weschta (EP 3663058), as evidenced by Wang (CN 109454674).
Regarding claim 10, Piwaron discloses a blade attachment assembly, comprising: an inner blade comprising a plurality of blade teeth (upper blade 52 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 80; see fig. 4); an outer blade comprising a plurality of blade teeth (lower blade 48 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 76 and forward cutting edge 76 is oriented parallel to forward cutting edge 80; see figs. 2, 4, and paragraph [0022]); a mounting bracket (support member 60; see fig. 4) comprising plastic tabs (see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the mounting bracket coupled to an inner surface of the inner blade and pressing the inner blade towards the outer blade to capture the inner blade (see fig. 2 and paragraph [0030]); and a hinge (biasing member 72; see figs. 2 and 4) coupling an inner surface of the inner blade to an inner surface of the mounting bracket with snap tabs (biasing member 72 couples the inner surface of upper blade 52 to the inner surface of support member 60; see figs. 2 and 4), the snap tabs integrally formed with the hinge and protruding out to form a proximate end of the hinge (the snap tabs are an integral part of biasing member 72 and form one end of the biasing member 72; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), wherein adjustment of the snap tabs against the plastic tabs on the mounting bracket changes a tensile force applied to the mounting bracket to adjust a position of the inner blade relative to the outer blade (the snap tabs of biasing member 72 interact with the tabs of support member 60 to increase or decrease the force applied such that upper blade 52 is adjusted relative to lower blade 47; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below and paragraph [0030]).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose the hinge comprising a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in.
Weschta discloses the hinge comprising a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in (Weschta’s disclosure provides the range 0.15 N/mm to 0.25 N/mm. Multiplying both values by the conversion factor 5.71 will provide an approximate range of 0.86 Ibf/in to 1.43 Ibf/in, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Weschta, as evidenced by Wang to include a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in. It is known in the art that a specified spring constant range, such as the one taught by Weschta, allows for a shaver head to pivot to various angles, which can make the process of shaving more comfortable, efficient, and overall, more convenient (see Wang pg. 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 11, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the hinge is adjustable to change the tensile force between the mounting bracket and the inner blade (biasing member 72 can be actuated to increase or decrease the force applied; see paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the hinge is a metal stamping that is press fit into the mounting bracket (biasing member 72 is snapped into place between the tabs of support member 60 and two protrusions; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the hinge changes the tensile force generated by the mounting bracket 5% or more (biasing member 72 and support member 60 interact to generate a force; see paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron wherein the hinge changes the tensile force generated by 5% or more because it would be routine optimization of a result-effective variable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to perform routine experimentation in order to find the optimal amount of force that adjusts the blades without causing damage. Further, there appears to be no criticality placed on the range.
Regarding claim 15, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses a tab on an end of the hinge, wherein the tab extends beyond the mounting bracket (the base of biasing member 72 extends beyond support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) and provides a movable surface configured to adjust the force between the hinge and the mounting bracket that adjusts the tensile force between the inner blade and outer blade (the surface of the snap tabs which abuts the tabs of support member 60 allows for variance in tensile force which allows adjustment of the blades; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph 0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses a base (see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) of the hinge that is coupled to the inner blade (the base of biasing member 72 couples to upper blade 52; see fig. 2 and annotated portion of fig. 4 above), wherein changing an offset measured from the base to the tab of the hinge proportionally changes the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade (changing the length of biasing member 72 would result in a change in the force it can apply).
Regarding claim 17, Piwaron discloses an adjustable blade attachment assembly, comprising: an inner blade comprising blade teeth (upper blade 52 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 80; see fig. 4); an outer blade comprising blade teeth oriented parallel to the inner blade teeth (lower blade 48 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 76 and forward cutting edge 76 is oriented parallel to forward cutting edge 80; see figs. 2, 4, and paragraph [0022]) and configured to facilitate cutting when the inner blade oscillates over the outer blade (upper blade 52 oscillates in the direction of arrow 53 relative to lower blade 48; see figs. 8-9 and paragraph [0030]); a mounting bracket (support member 60; see fig. 4) comprising plastic tabs (see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the mounting bracket coupled to an inner surface of the inner blade and pressing the inner blade towards the outer blade to capture the inner blade (see fig. 2 and paragraph [0030]); and a metallic stamped hinge (biasing member 72; see figs. 2 and 4) that couples an inner surface of the inner blade to an inner surface of the mounting bracket with snap tabs (biasing member 72 couples the inner surface of upper blade 52 to the inner surface of support member 60; see figs. 2 and 4) that couple to the plastic tabs of the mounting bracket (the snap tabs of biasing member 72 couple to the tabs of support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the snap tabs comprising angled projections at an end of the hinge (the snap tabs are angled such that they form a coil on one end of biasing member 72; see fig. 4), to generate a force that pulls the mounting bracket inwards and generates a tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade (actuation of biasing member 72 in a forward direction opposite tab 144 will cause biasing member 72 to press down, thus pressing upper blade 52 and lower blade 48 together and increasing the force; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below and paragraph [0030]), wherein adjustment of the snap tabs on the hinge changes a tensile force applied to the mounting bracket to adjust the inner blade relative to the outer blade (adjustment of the snap tabs of biasing member 72 can increase or decrease the force applied to support member 60 and thereby upper blade 52; see paragraph [0030]).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that there is no recitation regarding what the projections of the snap tabs are angled in respect to. Thus, a projection on the snap tabs with any angle reads on the claim as currently recited.
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose the hinge comprising a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in.
Weschta discloses the hinge comprising a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in (Weschta’s disclosure provides the range 0.15 N/mm to 0.25 N/mm. Multiplying both values by the conversion factor 5.71 will provide an approximate range of 0.86 Ibf/in to 1.43 Ibf/in, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Weschta, as evidenced by Wang to include a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in. It is known in the art that a specified spring constant range, such as the one taught by Weschta, allows for a shaver head to pivot to various angles, which can make the process of shaving more comfortable, efficient, and overall, more convenient (see Wang pg. 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 18, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the snap tabs on an end of the metallic stamped hinge extend beyond the mounting bracket (the snap tabs of biasing member 72 extends beyond support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) and are configured to provide a movable surface to adjust the force between the hinge and the mounting bracket that adjusts the tensile force between the inner blade and outer blade (the surface of the snap tabs which abuts the tabs of support member 60 allows for variance in tensile force which allows adjustment of the blades; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph 0030]).
Regarding claim 19, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 18 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses a base (see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) at a proximal end of the metallic stamping extending through the mounting bracket and coupled to the inner blade (the base forms one end of biasing member 72 and extends through the opening in support member 60 to couple to upper blade 52; see fig. 2 and annotated portion of fig. 4 above), wherein changing an offset measured from the base to the snap tab of the hinge proportionally changes the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade (changing the length of biasing member 72 would result in a change in the force it can apply).
Regarding claim 20, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 19 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the snap tabs on the hinge are oriented to be coplanar with the plastic tabs of the mounting bracket (the snap tabs of biasing member 72 are oriented on the same vertical and horizontal plane as the tabs of support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550) in view of Weschta (EP 3663058), as evidenced by Wang (CN 109454674), further in view of Zhang (CN 108838301).
Regarding claim 13, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the hinge is a metal comprising an alloy of at least one of an aluminum, a titanium, or a steel.
Zhang discloses wherein the hinge is a metal comprising an alloy of at least one of an aluminum, a titanium, or a steel (titanium alloy spring; see pg. 1, paragraphs 3 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Piwaron in view of Zhang to include a hinge made of a titanium alloy. Zhang further discloses that titanium alloys are useful for an application such as a spring, since titanium has high strength, as well as good corrosion and heat resistance (see pg. 1, paragraph 1). These traits are especially advantageous in a hair clipper which could potentially be exposed to water during normal use, thus leading a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spring of Piwaron to be a titanium alloy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner notes that currently relied upon prior art of record only comprises one metallic stamping/hinge/metallic stamped hinge. However, in drawings submitted by Applicant, specifically in figure 4, there are two elements labeled biasing spring 136. If claims were to be amended such that two or more metallic stampings/hinges/metallic stamped hinges were recited, the prior art of record would no longer meet the required limitations.
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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724