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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 12/8/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 2023200276196 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: to promote clarity of the application, all instances of “fixed cutter holder” should be amended to read “fixed blade holder”; likewise, all instances of “movable cutter holder” should be amended to read “movable blade holder”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: to promote clarity of the application, all instances of “fixed cutter holder” should be amended to read “fixed blade holder”; likewise, all instances of “movable cutter holder” should be amended to read “movable blade holder”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 20090144988) in view of Kruse (US 20200156271).
Regarding claim 1, Lau discloses a cutter head assembly with a guide structure, comprising: a bottom plate (spring holder 5; see fig. 4), a fixed blade (stationary blade 2; see fig. 4), a movable cutter holder (movable blade holder 3; see fig. 4), a movable blade (movable blade 1; see fig. 4), and a torsion spring (spring means 4; see fig. 4), and the movable blade is arranged on the movable cutter holder (movable blade holder 3 is fastened to movable blade 1; see paragraph [0023] and fig. 3), wherein the torsion spring is fixedly mounted on the bottom plate or the fixed cutter holder (spring holder 5 comprises securing means 52 at a rear end which secures coiled portion 41 of spring means 4; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 4), wherein two ends of the torsion spring act on the movable cutter holder or the movable blade (movable blade holder 3 comprises two slots 51, which receive both segments 42 of spring means 4; see paragraph [0024] and figs. 3-4) to enable the movable blade to be attached to the fixed blade (segments 42 exert pressure on movable blade holder 3 so that movable blade 1 is biased towards stationary blade 2; see paragraph [0024]), wherein a transversely-arranged guide rod (driving shaft 511; see figs. 5 and 6) is fixedly mounted on the bottom plate (spring holder 5 comprises a pair of through holes 512 for receiving the middle portion of driving shaft 511; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 3, 5-6), and an end of the movable cutter holder corresponding to the movable blade is provided with a guide groove (movable blade holder 3 comprises a pair of hooked sections 514; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 3) interacting with the guide rod in a guiding manner (driving shaft 511 is received within the pair of hooked sections 514, which allows movable blade holder 3 to move in a lateral reciprocating manner along driving shaft 511; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 3), wherein a portion of the bottom plate corresponding to the movable cutter holder is provided with an avoidance groove (a portion of spring holder 5 comprises a cutout section that abuts movable blade holder 3; see annotated portion of fig. 5 below) for allowing the movable cutter holder to reciprocate transversely (the avoidance groove abuts movable blade holder 3 so that movable blade 1 may reciprocate transversely along driving shaft 511; see paragraph [0025] and annotated portion of fig. 5 below), wherein mounting portions are arranged on two sides of the bottom plate corresponding to the avoidance groove (a mounting portion is arranged on both sides of spring holder 5; see annotated portion of fig. 5 below), wherein two first mounting grooves (first and second through holes 512; see fig. 5) are respectively formed in the mounting portions (first and second through holes 512 are formed in the mounting portions; see annotated portion of fig. 5 below), wherein each of the two first mounting grooves interacts with an end portion of the guide rod (first and second through holes 512 interact with an end portion of driving shaft 511; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 5), wherein end surfaces of the two first mounting grooves (the edge portion of through holes 512; see annotated portion of fig. 6 below) limit the guide rod to move in a direction perpendicular to an insertion direction (the edge portion of through holes 512 prevents movement in a direction other than the transverse direction; see annotated portion of fig. 6 below), wherein each of the two first mounting grooves is provided with a limiting protrusion adjacent thereto (locking tab 513 is arranged adjacent to the mounting portions; see figs. 5-6), wherein the limiting protrusion is positioned to limit the guide rod to move along the insertion direction (the front end of locking tab 513 abuts an underside of driving shaft 511, further limiting it so that it can only move in a transverse direction; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
357
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lau does not explicitly disclose a fixed cutter holder, wherein the fixed cutter holder is slidably arranged on the bottom plate, the fixed blade is fixedly connected to the fixed cutter holder.
Kruse discloses a fixed cutter holder (bracket 16; see fig. 4), wherein the fixed cutter holder is slidably arranged on the bottom plate (as modified, bracket 16 is slidably arranged on the bottom plate via adjustment of lever 100; see paragraphs [0044-0049]), the fixed blade is fixedly connected to the fixed cutter holder (lower blade 12 is connected to bracket 16 via bolts 18, 20; see paragraph [0036] and fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lau in view of Kruse to include a fixed blade holder that is slidably arranged on the bottom plate. Lau discloses the opposite configuration, wherein the movable blade holder is slidably arranged via action of push lever 6 (see paragraphs [0026-0030]). The hair clipper of Kruse is designed such that the fixed blade (lower blade 12) is adjustable instead of the movable blade; i.e., Kruse discloses an equivalent configuration that results in the fixed blade holder being slidably arranged on the bottom plate. Kruse discloses that adjustment of the fixed blade holder (bracket 16) allows a user to adjust the cutting depth. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the adjustment of cutting depth corresponds to the length of hair to be cut, which is advantageous because it allows a user to selectively choose what length of hair to cut, thus providing more versatility.
Regarding claim 3, Lau as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Lau as modified further discloses wherein an upper end of the limiting protrusion is provided with a guide inclined surface (see annotated portion of fig. 5 above) for allowing the guide rod to be inserted into each of the two first mounting grooves (locking tab 513 abuts an underside of driving shaft 511 when it is inserted into through holes 512, limiting driving shaft 511 from moving in a direction other than the transverse direction; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Lau as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Lau as modified further discloses wherein the end of the movable cutter holder corresponding to the guide rod is provided with a first mounting block (end portions of movable blade holder 3; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), wherein the first mounting block is provided with the guide groove (the end portions of movable blade holder 3 comprise a pair of hooked sections 514; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 3) matched with the outer diameter of the guide rod (hooked sections 514 match with the outer diameter of driving shaft 511 since hooked sections 514 receive driving shaft 511; see paragraph [0025]), wherein the movable cutter holder is inserted into the guide rod through the guide groove and is capable of reciprocating transversely along the guide rod (driving shaft 511 is received within the pair of hooked sections 514, which allows movable blade holder 3 to move in a lateral reciprocating manner along driving shaft 511; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
591
629
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lau as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Lau as modified further discloses wherein a longitudinal section of the guide groove is configured to be a U-shaped structure (since driving shaft 511 is formed as a cylinder and hooked portions 514 are configured to receive it, it is understood that hooked portions 514 have a corresponding U-shaped structure; see paragraph [0025]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 20090144988) in view of Kruse (US 20200156271), in view of Xie (CN 214818715), and further in view of Park (KR 101668754).
Regarding claim 6, Lau as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Lau as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein an oil storage groove is provided at an inner end of the movable cutter holder corresponding to the guide groove, wherein an oil storage sponge is arranged in the oil storage groove, wherein the guide rod is in contact with the oil storage sponge, wherein the oil storage sponge is prevented from falling off from the oil storage groove by the guide rod.
Xie discloses wherein an oil storage groove (oil storage groove 122; see fig. 2) is provided at an inner end of the movable cutter holder corresponding to the guide groove (oil storage groove 122 is formed on blade holder 12 at a location that also corresponds to sliding groove 121; see paragraph [0029] and fig. 2), wherein the guide rod is in contact with the oil storage sponge (as modified to include an oil storage sponge, sliding part 142, which corresponds to the guide rod, is in contact with the oil storage sponge; see paragraph [0029]), wherein the oil storage sponge is prevented from falling off from the oil storage groove by the guide rod (as modified, the sponge is unable to be removed from oil storage groove 122 due to the presence of sliding part 142; see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Lau in view of Xie to include an oil storage groove. Xie discloses that incorporating a lubricating system reduces friction between the sliding part and the sliding groove, thereby reducing wear and improving service life of the blade set. Further, such a configuration is inexpensive and easy to clean (see paragraph [0010]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that incorporating the same lubricating system into Lau as modified would yield the same improvements. Therefore, in order to reduce wear and increase the service life of the blade set, it would be obvious to incorporate an oil storage groove into Lau as modified.
Park discloses wherein an oil storage sponge (left and right blocking members 120, which are formed from an elastic sponge; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 3) is arranged in the oil storage groove (as modified, left and right blocking members 120 are located in the oil storage groove so that they may absorb and retain lubricating oil; see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Lau in view of Park to include an oil storage sponge. Park discloses that the oil storage sponge (left and right blocking members 120) is formed of an elastic sponge which is able to retain and continuously supply oil to each side of the blades (see paragraph [0026]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Lau as modified would receive the same benefits if an oil sponge were to be added. That is, the inclusion of the sponge into the oil storage groove allows oil to be retained for a longer period of time, thus the blade set is kept lubricated even if a user does not add new oil. If the device of Lau as modified did not include an oil storage sponge, it can reasonably be assumed that the blade set would not be kept oiled for as long of a time, since there would be no element dedicated to retaining oil. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious in order to reduce wear and extend service life of the blade set.
Regarding claim 7, Lau as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Park further discloses wherein when the oil storage sponge is not pressed, an outer end of the oil storage sponge extends out from the oil storage groove (left and right blocking members 120 are able to contract and relax in accordance with the reciprocating motion of movable blade 25. As modified, it is understood that left and right blocking members 120 would contract and relax during interaction with the guide rod, and as a result, would expand past the oil storage groove when no pressure is applied; see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Lau in view of Park to make the oil storage sponge extend from the oil storage groove when not pressed. Park discloses that the oil storage sponge (left and right blocking members 120) is able to contract and relax in accordance with the reciprocating motion of the movable blade, and as a result, induce smooth operation during a change in direction of the movable blade (see paragraph [0026]). Since Park discloses an oil storage sponge that can contract and relax, it is understood that including it in the oil storage groove of Lau as modified would yield an oil storage sponge that extends out from the oil storage groove if no pressure is applied to it. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that ensuring the reciprocating blade is able to smoothly change direction would result in improved comfort for a user. Since Lau as modified would receive the same benefits, it would have been obvious to include an oil storage sponge as taught by Park.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 20090144988) in view of Kruse (US 20200156271), and further in view of Wahl (US 2271053).
Regarding claim 8, Lau as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Lau as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein an insertion block is arranged at the end of the movable cutter holder corresponding to the guide rod, wherein the movable blade is provided with a first slot for interacting with the insertion block.
Wahl discloses wherein an insertion block is arranged at the end of the movable cutter holder corresponding to the guide rod (piece of felt 17 is arranged to extend to each end of cutter blade 10; see fig. 3), wherein the movable blade is provided with a first slot (recess 20; see fig. 3) for interacting with the insertion block (recess 20, in conjunction with recesses 15 and 16, secure piece of felt 17; see pg. 1, lines 32-49 and figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Lau in view of Wahl to include an insertion block and a corresponding slot. Wahl discloses that this slot (recess 20) can be used to secure a piece of felt which is lubricated with a low viscosity oil in order to lubricate the blades (see pg. 1, lines 32-55). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefits of lubricating the blade set including reduced wear due to lower friction, which ultimately leads to a longer service life. The device of Lau as modified would receive the same benefits if modified to have an insertion block and slot as taught by Wahl.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the two first mounting grooves is provided with a limiting protrusion adjacent thereto” which is interpreted as meaning a singular limiting protrusion is provided for each first mounting groove i.e., the first mounting grooves “share” a limiting protrusion. Lau discloses a limiting protrusion, locking tab 513, which is located adjacent to the mounting grooves (through holes 512) as shown in figs. 5 and 6. Locking tab 513 is also capable of limiting movement of the guide rod (driving shaft 511) in the insertion direction – if driving shaft 511 is not fully inserted into through holes 512, locking tab 513 is positioned such that it prevents movement of driving shaft 511 in an upward/downward direction. In this way, movement of driving shaft 511 is limited such that only movement in the insertion direction is possible.
Further, Applicant asserts that Lau addresses a different technical problem than that of the instant invention, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Lau to solve the problem solved by the instant invention. Examiner notes that the prior art is not required to solve the same problem, so long as the recited structure is provided. Since the Lau reference is classified within the art of hair trimmers, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider Lau to solve the problem outlined by the instant invention. Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees that Lau teaches away from the combination of Lau and Kruse. A focus on adjusting the movable blade does not necessarily preclude one from making the fixed blade adjustable as well. In making both blades adjustable, a user is provided with more options for adjusting a cutting depth of the hair trimmer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 9144911 to Arndt, drawn to a linear drive system for hair clippers; and US 3561116 to Wahl, drawn to transmission members for an electric hair clipper.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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