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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13: at line 6, “surrounding shell section” should be amended to read “surrounding outer metal shell section”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arndt (US 20220184827).
Regarding claim 1, Arndt discloses a personal care device (hair clipper 10; see fig. 1), comprising a handle (outer housing 20 and chassis 12 form a handle; see fig. 1) and a function head (bracket 106; see fig. 1) supporting at least one personal care tool (bracket 106 supports bladeset 26; see paragraph [0047] and fig. 1), said function head being attached to said handle (bracket 106 is received by blade guide channel 102 of chassis 12; see paragraphs [0046-0047] and fig. 6), wherein said handle includes an outer metal shell (outer housing 20 is made of metal, preferably cast and polished aluminum, or other metals; see paragraph [0038]), said metal shell having one opening, (when upper housing 22 and lower housing 24 are combined into outer housing 20, several openings are formed; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) wherein one functional module (grips 44; see figs. 5 and 8) is accommodated in said outer metal shell (grips 44 are located at least partially within outer housing 20; see fig. 5), wherein said functional module having a protrusion (grips 44 include a protrusion; see annotated portion of figs. 5 and 8 below) extending through said opening in said outer metal shell and projecting beyond an outer surface of an outer metal shell section surrounding said opening (the protrusion extends through the opening formed when outer housing 20 is assembled, past the outer surface of outer housing 20; see figs. 5 and 8) or said functional module is fully covering an outer edge of said opening (grips 44 of chassis 12 cover edges 72, 74 of upper housing 22 and lower housing 24 when outer housing 20 is assembled; see fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
889
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
497
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
578
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said opening in said outer metal shell comprises a lateral opening (a lateral opening is formed around grips 44 when outer housing 20 is assembled; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above) through which said functional module (one of grips 44 comprises ON/OFF switch 100; see paragraph [0045] and fig. 1) at least partly extends (grips 44 extend through the openings in outer housing 20; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein the handle is provided with a front module and a back module (grips 44; see fig. 7) at opposing lateral sides thereof, one of the front and back modules defining the one functional module, (grips 44 are each located on opposite sides of hair clipper 10; see figs. 2, 7, and 8) each of the front and the back module being provided with a protrusion extending through corresponding openings of said outer metal shell, the one opening in the outer metal shell comprising one of the corresponding openings (grips 44 both extend through the openings of outer housing 20 and each includes a protrusion; see annotated portion of figs. 2, 5, and 8 above).
Regarding claim 4, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein the handle is provided with a top module defined by said function head (bracket 106; see fig. 1) and a bottom module (cord protector 42; see fig. 5) at opposing longitudinal sides thereof (bracket 106 and cord protector 42 are located at opposite sides of hair clipper 10; see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said protrusion includes a collar (peripheral edge 72; see figs. 1 and 2) overlapping said opening or seated onto said outer surface of said outer metal shell section surrounding the opening (peripheral edge 72 is dimensioned to be slightly oversized so that edges 74, 76 of outer housing 20 are covered; see paragraph [0043] and figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said protrusion projects beyond the outer surface of the outer metal shell by an amount which is constant along the entire opening (the protrusion extends what appears to be a constant amount above the outer surface of outer housing 20; see fig. 1 and annotated portion of fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 8, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said protrusion is made from soft plastic and/or hard plastic (the protrusion is part of grip 44, which is made from a soft, rubber-like material that is compressible to accommodate outer housing 20; see paragraphs [0009-0010]) with an outer contour matching an inner contour of the opening in terms of shape and dimension (the protrusion extends outwardly in such a way that the shape and dimension accommodates the opening of outer housing 20; see paragraph [0010] and fig. 1) to provide for sealing or form-fitting or snap-fitting engagement of the protrusion with the outer metal shell (when assembled, upper housing 22 and lower housing 24 exert a compressive force on grips 44 in order to accommodate variations of outer housing 20; see paragraphs [0009, 0043]).
Regarding claim 9, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said outer metal shell has opposite end portions each defining a closed circular cross-section (when upper housing 22 and lower housing 24 are assembled, both the end near the blades and the end near the cord protector have a circular cross-section; see figs. 10 and 15-16), wherein an intermediate section between said opposite end portions includes one lateral opening defined by the one opening or a lateral perforation (a lateral opening is formed around the intermediate section of outer housing 20; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 10, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said outer metal shell is formed in one piece with an integral, homogeneous, seamless structure having a cylindrical shape (outer housing 20 is one construction which contains cylindrical cross-sections; see figs. 10 and 15-16) with closed annular cross-sections (outer housing 20 includes a closed circular annular cross-section; see figs. 10 and 15-16).
Regarding claim 12, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said outer metal shell includes at least one undercut portion (at least lower housing 24 of outer housing 20 comprises an undercut, which is presumed to assist a user in gripping the device; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below).
Regarding claim 13, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said outer metal shell includes at least one opening (lateral opening formed around the intermediate section of outer housing 20; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above) surrounded by a three-dimensionally shaped outer metal shell section (the lateral opening where grip 44 is positioned is surrounded by a portion of outer housing 20; see fig. 4), said opening having a three-dimensionally shaped edge contour (edges 74, 76; see figs. 4 and 5) extending perpendicular to the surrounding outer metal shell section along the entire contour of the opening (edges 74, 76 extend at least partially in a direction perpendicular to the oval-shaped lateral opening; see fig. 5), said surrounding shell section neighboring and surrounding said opening having a varying orientation changing along the opening (the portion of outer housing 20 which surrounds the opening varies slightly in orientation, i.e., edges 74, 76 curve in various portions so that they are not all oriented on the same axis; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said outer metal shell has an elongated, hollow shape (outer housing 20 has an elongated, cylindrical shape which is hollow so as to enclose chassis 12; see paragraph [0038] and figs. 2, 5) with frontal openings at opposite axial end portions (outer housing 20 comprises openings at opposite ends near the blade and cord protector; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above), said axial end portions having closed annular cross-sections surrounding the openings (when assembled, outer housing 20 has closed annular cross-sections around the openings at each end; see figs. 5 and 10).
Regarding claim 20, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein the personal care device is a hair cutter or a tooth brush (hair clipper 10; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein the at least one functional module comprises at least one of a motor, a display, a battery, a control switch, an electronic control unit, or a sound generator (one of grips 44 comprises ON/OFF switch 100; see paragraph [0045] and fig. 1).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt (US 20220184827).
Regarding claim 5, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt does not explicitly disclose wherein said function head is provided with a plastic chassis member extending through a bottom opening and a top opening of an outer metal shell of said function head.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Arndt to provide a plastic chassis member extending through an outer metal shell of the function head. Arndt discloses that the outer housing 20 is made of metal, whereas chassis 12 is made from an injection molded plastic (see paragraph [0038]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing an outer metal shell can protect interior elements from damage due to dropping, while a plastic chassis can protect interior elements from damage due to water or debris. Therefore, in order to provide the same level of protection to the function head as the rest of the personal care device, such a modification would be obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt (US 20220184827) in view of Rose (DE 102011103661).
Regarding claim 11, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt does not explicitly disclose wherein said outer metal shell is a hydraulic pressure-formed portion deformed by hydraulic pressure or a hydroformed portion.
Rose teaches that it is known to form small housings, particularly those of stainless steel, using hydroforming (see paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Arndt in view of the teachings of Rose to make the outer metal shell using a hydroforming process. Rose teaches that it is beneficial to produce small housings using hydroforming because it is more economical and results in a device that can be designed in a more aesthetically pleasing manner (see paragraph [0008]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would then reasonably apply the known technique of Rose to the similar device of Arndt in order to achieve the same benefits, including a more economical design that is more aesthetically pleasing to a user.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt (US 20220184827) in view of Jungnickel (US 20210220101).
Regarding claim 16, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt does not explicitly disclose wherein said outer metal shell is made from stainless steel or a steel containing chromium, nickel and molybdenum.
Jungnickel discloses wherein said outer metal shell is made from stainless steel or a steel containing chromium, nickel and molybdenum (metal tube housing 18 may be made from stainless steel and/or aluminum; see paragraph [0056] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Arndt in view of Jungnickel to make the outer metal shell from stainless steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). Further, Arndt discloses that outer shell 20 may be made from other metals or composites known in the art (see paragraph [0038]), which would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the usage of other materials. Jungnickel discloses that making a housing from stainless steel and/or aluminum provides high durability and provides high quality perception and product appearance (see paragraph [0058]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the similar device of Arndt would receive the same benefits if modified to use stainless steel as disclosed by Jungnickel, thus making the modification obvious.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt (US 20220184827) in view of Jungnickel (US 20210220101), and further in view of Park (US 20030208912).
Regarding claim 21, Arndt as modified discloses the limitations of claim 16 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein said outer metal shell is made from 10-25 mass% Cr, 5-20 mass% Ni and 1-5 mass% Mo or 16-18 mass% Cr, 10-14 mass% Ni and 2-3 mass% Mo.
Park discloses a set of hair clipper blades made from stainless steel including 12% or higher chromium and small amounts of nickel and molybdenum (see paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Arndt in view of Park to make the outer metal shell from a composition including chromium, nickel, and molybdenum. Park discloses a set of clipper blades made from stainless steel including 12% or higher chromium, and in some cases, also including nickel and molybdenum in small amounts (see paragraph [0023]). Park further discloses that such a material provides excellent abrasion resistance, heat resistance, and surface properties. Provided the known composition of stainless steel using chromium, nickel, and molybdenum, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably motivated to try varying amounts of the above materials in the outer metal shell in order to provide the same benefits. Therefore, in order to provide improved abrasion resistance, heat resistance, and better surface properties to the housing, such a modification would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Arndt does not disclose a functional module, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner interprets ON/OFF switch 100 and respective grip 44 as one component, thus grip 44 can be considered a functional module. Further, Examiner notes that as best understood in view of the specification, a switch is merely an example of a type of functional component and may comprise other structures (“functional components such as displays, controllers or switches or connectors such as loading cable terminals”; see pg. 3, lines 1-2 of instant specification). On pg. 3, lines 9-10 of the instant specification, functional components may also include devices “such as electronics, drive units or batteries or mechanical transmitters”. Thus, as best understood, the term “functional components” may encompass a wide variety of structures, and the structures listed are interpreted as exemplary. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that grip 44 and ON/OFF switch 100, when viewed as one component, are not precluded from this definition.
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, 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights