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 Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 12.
The Examiner acknowledges the addition of claim 14.
The Examiner acknowledges the replacement drawings for Figs. 2 and 3 and withdraws the drawing objection of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the claim states “the locked position” in line 18 of the claim. It is unclear if the claim requires two separate “locked positions” as a second “locked position” is claimed in line 20 of the claim or if this is an issue of antecedent basis. As best understood by the Examiner a single locked position is required and disclosed by the instant disclosure (Specification, Pg. 2, lines 2-6). To expedite prosecution the Examiner has understood the “locked position” of line 18 of the claim to be the same locked position of line 20.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto et al. (US 4,776,095 A), hereafter known as Tsujimoto, in view of Jurgen Behrendt (DE 10 2007 008 622 A1), hereafter known as Behrendt.
Regarding claim 1, Tsujimoto teaches a comb attachment for a blade system, the comb attachment comprising:
a rack component (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6 and 8, 20 and 54) and a pinion assembly (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 10, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 58), the rack component defined by one of a comb and a housing (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 10) and comprising a rack (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6 and 8, 54), the housing being configured to attach to the blade system (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 30), and the pinion assembly comprising a pinion component (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 58) defined by the other of the comb and the housing (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 20), the pinion assembly further comprising an axle (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 51) retained by the pinion component, and a pinion (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 50 and 53) disposed on the axle such that the pinion is rotatable with respect to the pinion component (Tsujimoto, Fig. 8, 50, 51, and 53), wherein the rack and the pinion are arranged to cooperate such that rotation of the pinion on the axle induces relative linear movement between the comb and the housing (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 50, 51, 53, and 55, Col. 4, line 63 – Col. 5 line 3);
a locking mechanism (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 58) configured to rotationally lock the pinion (Tsujimoto, Col. 5 lines 13-17), wherein the locking mechanism comprises a protrusion (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 59) on one of the pinion and the pinion component (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 10), and a notch (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 52) on the other of the pinion and the pinion component, the protrusion and notch being configured to engage to lock the pinion to thereby prevent relative linear movement between the comb and the housing (Tsujimoto, Col. 5 lines 13-17),
wherein the pinion is moveable between a locked position (Tsujimoto, Col. 5 lines 17-24), in which the protrusion and the notch are engaged, and an unlocked position, in which the protrusion and the notch are disengaged, and wherein the pinion is biased away from the rack and towards the locked position, such that pushing the pinion towards the rack and the unlocked position causes disengagement of the notch and protrusion to permit rotation of the pinion.
Tsujimoto does not teach wherein the locking mechanism biases the pinion away from the rack that such the notch and the protrusion are engaged in a locked position and when the pinion is biased the notch and protrusion are disengaged in an unlocked position. The locking mechanism of Tsujimoto instead flexes or biased away from the notches when rotational movement is applied to the pinion.
Behrendt teaches a comb attachment (Behrendt, Fig. 1-6, 4) wherein a locking mechanism (Behrendt, Fig. 2, 19, 25, 31, 67, and 68) is engaged in a locked position which prevents adjustment (Behrendt, P. 0043) and when pressure is applied to the locking mechanism biasing the mechanism away from the locked position the device is in an unlocked position that allows adjustment (Behrendt, P. 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the locking mechanism of Tsujimoto to function like the locking mechanism taught by Behrendt as it is well known in the art to substitute equivalent components known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06(II)). As the type of locking mechanism that requires pressure to depress or bias a part of the mechanism to allow for adjustment is known in the art as shown by Behrendt is would be obvious to a worker in the art that such mechanisms would be an alternative equivalent and would thus understand how to modify the locking mechanism taught by Tsujimoto as such.
Regarding claim 2, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1, wherein the pinion component is the comb (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 20) and wherein the rack component is the housing (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 10).
Regarding claim 5, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1, wherein the pinion (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 50) comprises a plurality of protrusions or notches (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 52) distributed around the pinion, wherein the plurality of protrusions or notches are configured to engage with the other of the protrusion or notch (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 59) on the pinion component (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 58) to permit locking the pinion at different rotational positions (Tsujimoto, Col. 5, lines 11-24) around the axle (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 51).
Regarding claim 6, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1, wherein the comb (Tsujimoto, Fig. 1, 20) comprises a plurality of teeth (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Tsujimoto) below) extending in a direction parallel to the direction of movement between the comb and the housing (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Tsujimoto) below), each tooth having an increasing depth along its extent (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Tsujimoto) below), from a point (Tsujimoto, Fig. 1, 22), to define a triangular shape, the teeth being configured to rest on the blade system (Tsujimoto, Fig. 2, 20 and 30).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, A kit comprising a blade system (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 30) and a comb attachment (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 10 and 20) according to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto (US 4,776,095 A) in view of Jurgen Behrendt (DE 10 2007 008 622 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nannini (US 1,451,175 A).
Regarding claim 3, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1.
Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt does not teach wherein the pinion assembly comprises at least two pinions each arranged to cooperate with the rack. Tsujimoto instead teaches two pinions wherein only one pinion is arranged to cooperate with the rack.
Nannini teaches a comb attachment (Nannini, Fig. 2-5, 7) wherein the pinion assembly (Nannini, Fig. 3-4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) comprises at least two pinions (Nannini, Fig. 3-4,17 and 18) each arranged to cooperate with the rack (Nannini, Fig. 3-4,14). Multiple pinions help ensure proper adjustment of the comb attachment (Nannini, Col. 3, lines 10-20)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the pinion of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt such that there were 2 pinions as taught by Nannini or to feature any number of pinions as doing so helps ensure the proper adjustment of the comb attachment and the addition of more pinions would not alter the function of the components.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto (US 4,776,095 A) in view of Jurgen Behrendt (DE 10 2007 008 622 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sanchez (US 10,307,920 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1.
Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt does not teach wherein the housing is configured to removably attach to the blade system. The device taught by Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt has a one piece comb that attaches to a hair trimming device which contains the pinon component, rack component and the locking mechanism.
Sanchez teaches a comb attachment (Sanchez, Fig. 1-10C, 20) wherein the housing (Sanchez, Fig. 7A-7B, 40) is configured to removably attach (Sanchez, Fig. 7A-7B, 40 and 90) to the blade system (Sanchez, Fig. 3-6, 80).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the comb attachment taught by Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt such that the housing is a separate component from the blade system and separatable from the blade system as taught by Sanchez as it is well known to a worker in the art to make components of a device separable (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto (US 4,776,095 A) in view of Jurgen Behrendt (DE 10 2007 008 622 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hitson (US 3,041,726 A).
Regarding claim 7, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt teaches the comb attachment according to claim 6, wherein the teeth of the comb (Tsujimoto, Fig. 2, 20) are configured to rest on the blade system on a blade side of the teeth (Tsujimoto, Fig. 2, 20 and 32).
Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt does not teach wherein the blade side of each tooth comprises a plurality of successively deepening recesses distributed along the extent of the tooth from the point, each recess being configured to receive an edge of the blade system.
Hitson teaches a comb attachment (Hitson, Fig. 1-3, 8) wherein the blade side (Hitson, Fig. 1-3, 26) of each tooth (Hitson, Fig. 1-3, 22) comprises a plurality of successively deepening recesses (Hitson, Fig. 1-3, 32, 34, and 36) distributed along the extent of the tooth from the point (Hitson, Fig. 1-3, 22 and 38), each recess being configured to receive an edge (Hitson, Fig. 1-3, 30) of the blade system (Hitson, Fig. 1-3, 28). Such an arrangement allows for the blade to be held mechanically during cutting and helps to ensure proper blade adjustment without removing the comb attachment (Hitson, Col. 1, lines 32-51).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the comb attachment of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt to include a plurality of successively deepening recesses on a blade side of the comb as doing so allows the blades to be held mechanically during cutting by the comb and helps to further ensure proper blade adjustment without the need to remove the comb.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto (US 4,776,095 A) in view of Jurgen Behrendt (DE 10 2007 008 622 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chaouachi et al. (US 6,279,234 B1), hereafter known as Chaouachi.
Regarding claim 8, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1, wherein the housing (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 10) comprises two opposing sides (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Tsujimoto) above) between which the comb (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 20) is disposed.
Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt does not teach wherein the comb comprises a guide cylinder extending from a side of the comb and held in a guide channel of the side of the housing to guide linear movement of the comb relative to the housing.
Chaouachi teaches a comb attachment (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 3, 4, and 13) wherein the comb (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 3) comprises a guide cylinder (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 24) extending from a side of the comb and held in a guide channel (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 19) of the side of the housing (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 4) to guide linear movement of the comb relative to the housing (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 3 and 4). This allows for the comb to be continually adjustable along the channel (Chaouachi, Col. 3, lines 5-7)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt to include a guide cylinder for the comb and a guide channel for the housing as doing so allows for the comb to be continuously adjustable along the channel.
Regarding claim 9, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt and Chaouachi teaches the comb attachment according to claim 8, wherein the comb (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 3) comprises two guide cylinders (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 24), each extending from opposing sides of the comb and held in a respective guide channel (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 19) in opposing sides of the housing (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 4), the device of Chaouachi can have both the cylinders and guides on both sides of the device (Chaouachi, Col. 2 line 63 – Col. 3 line 4).
Regarding claim 10, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt and Chaouachi teaches the comb attachment according to claim 8, wherein the guide channel (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 19) in the side of the housing (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 4) comprises an undulating profile comprising a plurality of hills and valleys (Chaouachi, Fig. 3, 19), wherein the guide cylinder (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 24) is configured to snap into respective valleys during linear movement between the comb (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 3) and the housing (Chaouachi, Fig. 2-3, 4), the guide channel of Chaouachi is shown to have curved structures in Fig. 3 that are hills or valleys and the cylinder of Chaouachi is capable of snapping to any of these areas..
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto (US 4,776,095 A) in view of Jurgen Behrendt (DE 10 2007 008 622 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wahl (US 4,622,745 A).
Regarding claim 11, Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1.
Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt does not teach wherein the comb comprises a plurality of triangular notches distributed in a row along a length of the comb perpendicular to an axis of the axle, and the housing comprises a corresponding triangular protrusion configured to engage each triangular notch during linear movement between the comb and the housing .
Wahl teaches wherein a comb (Wahl, Fig. 1-12, 16) comprising a plurality of triangular notches (Wahl, Fig. 11, 102) distributed in a row along a length of the comb perpendicular to an axis of the axle, the plurality of notches shown would be perpendicular to the axis of the axle taught by Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt, and the housing (Wahl, Fig. 11, 94 and 96) comprises a corresponding triangular protrusion (Wahl, Fig. 11, 92) configured to engage each triangular notch during linear movement between the comb and the housing (Wahl, Col. 5, lines 33-38). Such an arrangement helps to further fix the comb in desired relationship with the cutting device (Wahl, Col. 5, lines 33-38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt such that the housing featured a protrusion and the comb featured a plurality of notches as taught by Wahl as a way to further fix the comb in a desired relationship with the cutting device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, Tsujimoto teaches a comb attachment for a blade system, the comb attachment comprising:
a rack component (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6 and 8, 20 and 54) and a pinion assembly (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 10, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 58), the rack component defined by one of a comb and a housing (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 10) and comprising a rack (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6 and 8, 54), the housing being configured to attach to the blade system (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 30), and the pinion assembly comprising a pinion component (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 58) defined by the other of the comb and the housing (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 20), the pinion assembly further comprising an axle (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 51) retained by the pinion component, and a pinion (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 50 and 53) disposed on the axle such that the pinion is rotatable with respect to the pinion component (Tsujimoto, Fig. 8, 50, 51, and 53), wherein the rack and the pinion are arranged to cooperate such that rotation of the pinion on the axle induces relative linear movement between the comb and the housing (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 50, 51, 53, and 55, Col. 4, line 63 – Col. 5 line 3);
a locking mechanism (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 58) configured to rotationally lock the pinion (Tsujimoto, Col. 5 lines 13-17), wherein the locking mechanism comprises a protrusion (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 59) on one of the pinion and the pinion component (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 10), and a notch (Tsujimoto, Fig. 6, 52) on the other of the pinion and the pinion component, the protrusion and notch being configured to engage to lock the pinion to thereby prevent relative linear movement between the comb and the housing (Tsujimoto, Col. 5 lines 13-17),
wherein the pinion is moveable between a locked position (Tsujimoto, Col. 5 lines 17-24), in which the protrusion and the notch are engaged, and an unlocked position, in which the protrusion and the notch are disengaged, and wherein the pinion is biased away from the rack and towards the locked position, such that pushing the pinion towards the rack and the unlocked position causes disengagement of the notch and protrusion to permit rotation of the pinion.
Tsujimoto does not teach wherein the locking mechanism biases the pinion away from the rack that such the notch and the protrusion are engaged in a locked position and when the pinion is biased the notch and protrusion are disengaged in an unlocked position. The locking mechanism of Tsujimoto instead flexes or biased away from the notches when rotational movement is applied to the pinion. And the comb attachment comprising a torsion spring having a central coil with two ends extending from the coil, wherein the central coil is held on the pinion component, and wherein one end of the torsion spring acts on the axle to bias the pinion to the locked position, and wherein the other end of the torsion spring acts on the rack component to bias the comb towards the housing.
Behrendt teaches a comb attachment (Behrendt, Fig. 1-6, 4) wherein a locking mechanism (Behrendt, Fig. 2, 19, 25, 31, 67, and 68) is engaged in a locked position which prevents adjustment (Behrendt, P. 0043) and when pressure is applied to the locking mechanism biasing the mechanism away from the locked position the device is in an unlocked position that allows adjustment (Behrendt, P. 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the locking mechanism of Tsujimoto to function like the locking mechanism taught by Behrendt as it is well known in the art to substitute equivalent components known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06(II)). As the type of locking mechanism that requires pressure to depress or bias a part of the mechanism to allow for adjustment is known in the art as shown by Behrendt is would be obvious to a worker in the art that such mechanisms would be an alternative equivalent and would thus understand how to modify the locking mechanism taught by Tsujimoto as such.
The combination of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt does not teach the comb attachment comprising a torsion spring having a central coil with two ends extending from the coil, wherein the central coil is held on the pinion component, and wherein one end of the torsion spring acts on the axle to bias the pinion to the locked position, and wherein the other end of the torsion spring acts on the rack component to bias the comb towards the housing.
While springs are well known in the art and the prior art Behrendt teaches a spring the spring taught by Behrendt is not held by a pinion and does not act on an axle to bias the pinion, instead one end of the spring of Behrendt bias a dial or disk (Behrendt, Fig. 1-2, 67) from a base or bottom part (Behrendt, Fig. 2, 26) located at the other end of the spring to allow a locked and a unlocked position. In the art of hair clippers springs are well known to bias different elements together using a spring as shown by Ogawa et al. (US 5,054,199 A), hereafter known as Ogawa, where a spring (Ogawa, Fig. 2, 53) biases a stationary blade (Ogawa, Fig. 2, 51) together with a toothed movable blade (Ogawa, Fig. 2, 52, Col. 4, lines 12-15) but there is motivation to combine these functions. As such, modifying the device of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt such that a torsion spring having a central coil with two ends extending from the coil, wherein the central coil is held on the pinion component, and wherein one end of the torsion spring acts on the axle to bias the pinion to the locked position, and wherein the other end of the torsion spring acts on the rack component to bias the comb towards the housing would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the drawing objections of record are overcome by the instant replacement sheets of Figs. 2 and 3. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the drawing objection of record.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of claim 1 is improper and attempts to traverse the rejection of record as the combination of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt does not teach all of the claimed structures and functions of the instant invention. The Examiner disagrees, while the device taught by Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt teaches the claimed structures and functions but are not a one for one match to the instant invention as the rejection of record is drawn to the breadth of the claim language. The applicants assertions are drawn to matter not claimed and the Examiner will not important limitations from the specification. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive and the rejection of record for claim 1 is maintained.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of claim 3 is improper and attempts to traverse the rejection of record as the combination of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt and Nannini does not teach “two-pinions-on-one-rack” limitation. The Examiner disagrees, the limitation reads “at least two pinions arranged to cooperate with the rack” which is more broad that “on-one-rack”. The second pinion of Nannini cooperates with the first rack as it allows the rack to move when the first pinion is rotated. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive and the rejection of record for claim 3 is maintained.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of claim 4 is improper and attempts to traverse the rejection of record as the combination of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt and Sanchez does not teach all of the claimed structures and functions of the instant invention as the modification of record is impermissible hindsight. The Examiner disagrees, the teachings of Sanchez show that it is well known in the art of comb attachments to make the claimed structures separatable, the modification shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be well informed as to know to separate such structures and that a worker in the art would know how to modify the device taught by the prior art to be separatable. In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive and the rejection of record for claim 4 is maintained.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of claim 7 is improper and attempts to traverse the rejection of record as the combination of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt and Hitson would render the device inoperable and changes its principle operation. The Examiner disagrees, the claim is more broad than the applicant asserts and since the applicant has not included a definition for the term “blade side” given the broadest reasonable interpretation may be any side or face the blades are exposed to. As Hitson shows it is well known in the art to provide recesses to capture the tip of a blade and additional recess to capture the opposite end and a blade side does not only refer to the side the applicant supposes this shows that a person of ordinary skill would have more freedom in modifying the device than the applicant asserts. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive and the rejection of record for claim 7 is maintained.
The applicant asserts that claims 8-10 are allowable as the claims they depend from are also allowable. The Examiner disagrees, the claims from which claims 8-10 are not allowable over the prior art as their assertions were not persuasive in their attempt to overcome the prior art of record. As such, the prior art rejections of record for claims 8-10 are maintained.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of claim 10 is improper and attempts to traverse the rejection of record as the combination of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt and Chaouachi is conclusory and contrary to the reference. The Examiner disagrees, the claim limitation as claimed reads “wherein the guide channel in the side of the housing comprises an undulating profile comprising a plurality of hills and valleys”, hills and valleys are no defined by the claim or the specification and there is no claimed sequence or order for the structures. As the ends of Chaouachi are valleys where the guide cylinder of Chaouachi snaps into the prior art reads on the instant limitation. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive and the rejection of record for claim 10 is maintained.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of claim 11 is improper and attempts to traverse the rejection of record as the combination of Tsujimoto in view of Behrendt and Wahl as the modification of Wahl creates over-constraint and conflicts with the kinematics, yielding inoperability without undue redesign. The Examiner disagrees, the applicant’s assertion is a recreation of what or how they would attempt such a design. The modification is drawn to what would be within the level or knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The structures of claim 11 are known in the art and there is sufficient motivation for such a modification. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive and the rejection of record for claim 11 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724