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 September 3rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending
in the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the specification and claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 3rd, 2025.
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 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James Schatz (US 20160375594 A1 – hereinafter Schatz) in view of Rang-pan Wu (CN
111645116 A – hereinafter Wu) and Mark Bellm et al. (US 7013566 B1 – hereinafter Bellm).
Regarding claim 1, Schatz teaches a nose hair cutter (Fig. 1, Shaving Apparatus 100) for
cutting nose hairs, comprising a main part (Fig. 1, Shaving Apparatus 100) formed along an axis (Fig. 1, vertical axis through the center of the handle) thereof, the main part comprising a cutting
head (Fig. 1, Housing 102) and a handle (Fig. 1, Handle 108) connected thereto on a first end of
the main part (Fig. 1, upper half of Shaving Apparatus 100), wherein a blade (Fig. 5, Blade 104)
is arranged on the cutting head comprising a cutting edge (Fig. 5, Cutting Edge 109) extending in
an axial direction to the axis of the main part, for cutting the nose hairs, wherein the blade is
arranged on the cutting head such that the cutting edge of the blade protrudes at least in portions
from a surface of the cutting head extending in a peripheral direction to the axis of the main part
(Fig. 5, Cutting Edge 109 protrudes from Housing 102), such that the cutting edge intersects the
nose hairs supplied to the cutting edge on an exterior of the cutting head (Fig. 4, Cutting Edge
109 intersects nose hairs), wherein the cutting edge extends in a first plane (Fig. 5, a plane
parallel to Tangent Line 160 and passing through the axis) of the main part extending in a radial
direction to the axis of the main part, and wherein a flat (Fig. 5, inside face of Blade 104 that
protrudes from Cutting Edge 109) facing the axis of the main part is position at least in portions
at an acute angle of attack (Fig. 5, angle of Blade 104; [0042]) relative to the first plane of the
main part.
Schatz does not explicitly teach wherein the cutting edge of the blade is inclined relative to the axis of the main part at an acute angle of inclination.
However, Wu teaches a cutter (Fig. 1), wherein the cutting edge of the blade (Fig. 4, Side
Knife 32) is inclined relative to the axis (Fig. 2, vertical dotted line) of the main part (Fig. 2,
Cover Head 11) at an acute angle of inclination (Fig. 2, Included Angle D; Page 4, para 8. The
angle is between the cover wall and the axis, however since knife 32 is pressed flush against the
cover wall (Page 7, para 4), the angle of inclination is also defined between the axis and the
cutting edge of the knife) in a direction of the first main part end (Fig. 2, top end of Cover Head
11) of the main part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the blade of Schatz such that the cutting edge of the blade is
inclined relative to the axis at an acute angle of inclination as taught by Wu. According to Bellm,
it is beneficial to have an acute angle of inclination to yield efficient cutting while minimizing
wear (Bellm; Col 3, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 2, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 1,
wherein the angle of attack has a value between 25 degrees and 75 degrees (Fig. 5, angle of
Blade 104; [0042] – an angle of 30 degrees is disclosed).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm already teaches h the nose hair cutter according to claim 1, wherein the cutting edge of the blade is inclined relative to the axis of the main part at an acute angle of inclination in a direction of the first main part end of the main part (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm does not explicitly teach the nose hair cutting according to claim 1, wherein the angle of inclination has a value between 5 degrees and 20 degrees.
However, Wu further teaches wherein the angle of inclination has a value between 5
degrees and 45 degrees (Fig. 2, Included Angle D; Page 4, para 8. The angle is between the cover
wall and the axis, however since knife 32 is pressed flush against the cover wall (Page 7, para 4),
the angle of inclination is also defined between the axis and the cutting edge of the knife).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle of inclination of the combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm to have a value between 5 degrees and 45 degrees as taught by Wu. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle of inclination of the combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm to have a value between 5 degrees and 20 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955). The angle of inclination is disclosed to be a result effective variable by Bellm
as it needs to be optimized to improve cutting efficiency while minimizing blade wear (Bellm;
Col 3, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 5, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 1,
wherein the cutting head (Fig. 1, Housing 102) and the handle (Fig. 1, Handle 108) are connected
to one another for transmission of rotational movement between them (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 1,
wherein at least one first trough-shaped guide groove (Fig. 6a, closest entrance of Thru-slot 106) for the nose hairs is formed on the surface of the cutting head (Fig. 6a, Housing 102) at least in
portions in the peripheral direction with respect to the axis of the main part, into which guide
groove the blade (Fig. 6a, Blade 104) projects at least in portions with an edge (Fig. 6a, Cutting
Edge 109) that forms the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 7, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 6,
wherein the guide groove (Fig. 6a, closest entrance of Thru-slot 106) extends longitudinally
along the peripheral direction such that the cross section of the guide groove decreases at least in
portions (Fig. 6a, the guide groove is narrower at the top and bottom, and wider in the middle) ,
steadily, with increasing distance from the cutting edge in the peripheral direction to the axis of
the main part.
Regarding claim 8, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 6,
wherein at least one second guide groove (Fig. 6a, furthest entrance of Thru-slot 106) is formed
on the surface, which extends longitudinally in parallel with the first guide groove, at least in
portions, and into which the edge (Fig. 6b, Cutting Edge 109) forming the cutting edge projects
at least in portions transversely to the peripheral direction of the axis of the main part.
Regarding claim 9, Schatz further teaches the nose hair trimmer according to claim 1,
wherein a cavity (Fig. 5, Thru-slot 106) is formed in an interior of the cutting head (Fig. 5,
Housing 102), into which cavity the blade (Fig. 5, Blade 104) projects at least in portions with a
main part of the surface area of the blade, and is held in the cavity in a form-fitting and/or force-
fitting manner, by a holder (Fig. 5, blade is form-fit against the housing; [0038], blade is installed
on the holder, Housing 102).
Regarding claim 10, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 1,
wherein the cutting head (Fig. 1, Housing 102) is shaped so as to taper conically in the axial direction relative to the axis of the main part, at least in portions (Fig. 1, top half of Housing 102
tapers in a conical manner in the direction of the axis towards the first end of the main part) , in
the direction of the first end of the main part.
Regarding claim 12, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 1,
wherein the cutting head (Fig. 5, Housing 102) has at least two blades (Fig. 5, Blade 104) which
are arranged offset to one another in the peripheral direction to the axis of the main part, at an
angle of 180 degrees (Fig. 5, the two blades are 180 degrees offset as they are directly facing
each other).
Regarding claim 13, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 1,
wherein the angle of attack has a value between 30 degrees and 60 degrees (Fig. 5, angle of
Blade 104; [0042] – an angle of 30 degrees is disclosed).
Regarding claim 14, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 1,
wherein the angle of attack has a value of approximately 30 degrees (Fig. 5, angle of Blade 104;
[0042] – an angle of 30 degrees is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle of attack of Schatz to have a value between 44 degrees
and 46 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955). The angle of attack is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to
be optimized to provide a desired effectiveness (Schatz, [0042]).
Regarding claim 15, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 1,
wherein the angle of attack has a value of approximately 30 degrees (Fig. 5, angle of Blade 104;
[0042] – an angle of 30 degrees is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle of attack of Schatz to have a value of 45 degrees as a
matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a
claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
1955). The angle of attack is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized
to provide a desired effectiveness (Schatz, [0042]).
Regarding claim 16, the existing combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm does not explicitly teach the nose hair cutting according to claim 1, wherein the angle of inclination has a value of 10 degrees.
However, Wu further teaches wherein the angle of inclination has a value between 5
degrees and 45 degrees (Fig. 2, Included Angle D; Page 4, para 8. The angle is between the cover
wall and the axis, however since knife 32 is pressed flush against the cover wall (Page 7, para 4),
the angle of inclination is also defined between the axis and the cutting edge of the knife).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle of inclination of the combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm to have a value between 5 degrees and 45 degrees as taught by Wu. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle of inclination of the combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm to have a value of 10 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The angle of inclination is disclosed to be a result effective variable by Bellm as it needs to be optimized to improve cutting efficiency while minimizing blade wear (Bellm; Col 3, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 17, the existing combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm does not explicitly teach the nose hair cutting according to claim 1, wherein the angle of inclination has a value between 5 degrees and 15 degrees.
However, Wu further teaches wherein the angle of inclination has a value between 5
degrees and 45 degrees (Fig. 2, Included Angle D; Page 4, para 8. The angle is between the cover
wall and the axis, however since knife 32 is pressed flush against the cover wall (Page 7, para 4),
the angle of inclination is also defined between the axis and the cutting edge of the knife).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle of inclination of the combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm to have a value between 5 degrees and 45 degrees as taught by Wu. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle of inclination of the combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm to have a value of between 5 degrees and 15 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955). The angle of inclination is disclosed to be a result effective variable by Bellm
as it needs to be optimized to improve cutting efficiency while minimizing blade wear (Bellm;
Col 3, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 18, the existing combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm does not explicitly teach the nose hair cutting according to claim 1, wherein the angle of inclination has a value between 8 degrees and 12 degrees.
However, Wu further teaches wherein the angle of inclination has a value between 5
degrees and 45 degrees (Fig. 2, Included Angle D; Page 4, para 8. The angle is between the cover
wall and the axis, however since knife 32 is pressed flush against the cover wall (Page 7, para 4),
the angle of inclination is also defined between the axis and the cutting edge of the knife).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle of inclination of the combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm to have a value between 5 degrees and 45 degrees as taught by Wu. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle of inclination of the combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm to have a value of between 8 degrees and 12 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955). The angle of inclination is disclosed to be a result effective variable by Bellm
as it needs to be optimized to improve cutting efficiency while minimizing blade wear (Bellm;
Col 3, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 19, Schatz further teaches the nose hair cutter according to claim 1,
wherein the cutting head (Fig. 1, Housing 102) is shaped so as to taper conically, in the manner
of a truncated cone (Fig. 1, top half of Housing 102 tapers in the manner of a shape which
closely resemble a truncated cone in the direction of the axis towards the first end of the main
part), in the axial direction relative to the axis of the main part, at least in portions, in the
direction of the first end of the main part.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James Schatz (US 20160375594 A1 – hereinafter Schatz) in view of Rang-pan Wu (CN 111645116 A – hereinafter Wu) and Mark Bellm et al. (US 7013566 B1 – hereinafter Bellm) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aaron Barnes et al. (US 9750639 B2 – hereinafter Barnes).
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm fails to teach the nose hair cutter according to claim 1, wherein the main part is formed from two identically shaped main part components.
However, Barnes teaches a device for insertion into a facial orifice wherein the main part
is formed from two identically shaped main part components (Fig. 6, the two parts of Handle 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the main part of Schatz, Wu, and Bellm to be formed from two identically shaped main part components as taught by Barnes as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the main part being formed of two identically shaped main components capable of detachment rather than one integral piece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Schatz to include that the cutting edge of the blade is inclined relative to the axis of the main part at an acute angle of inclination as taught by Wu, reasoning for such modification provided by Bellm, since Bellm teaches that a sharper angle yields more efficient cutting in addition to more rapid wear, and since Bellm teaches the negative effect of rapid wear, Bellm teaches away from the use of an acute angle. Bellm teaching rapid wear when using a sharp angle does not teach away from the use of an acute angle, since the use of a sharp, or acute, angle would yield more efficient cutting, and such a benefit may be well worth the increase in wear. As highlighted by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1, Bellm teaches that decreasing the angle increases wear while increasing efficiency. Therefore, there is a need to optimize this angle for a desirable balance between wear and efficiency. Examiner finds that changing an angle of a blade does not amount to a redesign that is complex or costly, rather a simple geometric adjustment.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3799