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 November 3rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-17
remain pending in the application. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. The 112(b) rejections and claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 3rd, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is no space between 0.13 and mm in “0.13mm” on the second to last line of claims 1 and 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-8, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyuki Inoue et al. (US 20120240409 A1 – hereinafter Inoue) in view of Makoto Fukutani et al. (KR 20070024371 A - hereinafter Fukutani).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a blade set assembly for a hair cutting machine
comprising a blade set (Fig. 1, Fixed Blade Unit 1 and Moveable Blade Unit 3) having a stationary blade (Fig. 1, Fixed Blade Unit 1) and a movable blade (Fig. 1, Moveable Blade Unit 3), wherein the movable blade comprises a base portion (Fig. 5B, the lower half of Moveable Blade Unit 3 which includes Blades 31) having a tooth end (Fig. 5B, the end of the base portion which includes Blades 31) with a plurality of teeth (Fig. 5B, Blades 31) formed parallel to each other, wherein the tooth tips (Fig. 6A, tips of Blades 31) of the teeth extend toward an outside in a longitudinal direction of the hair cutting machine in a cutting region (Cutting region shown in Fig. 1) of the blade set, wherein the teeth of the movable blade are sized such that a distance between two respective adjacently arranged teeth (Fig. 6A, distance MD) of the plurality of teeth is greater than twice the width of each tooth tip (Fig. 6A, [0045]; the width of a distance between the teeth is more than twice as large as the width of a blade 31) of the teeth of the movable blade. Inoue does not teach that the distance between adjacent teeth is three times the width of
the teeth of the movable blade. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art before the time of filing to modify the distance between the adjacent teeth to be three
times the width of the teeth as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (specification of the claimed invention, page 5 lines 21-23) and since it has been held that
“[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a
prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA
1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Inoue fails to teach wherein the width of the tooth tips of the teeth of the movable blade is between 0.13 mm and 0.19 mm.
However, Fukutani teaches a blade with tooth tips which are 0.1 mm (Fig. 2b, Width w; page 4 para 5 - the width of the tooth tip is 0.1 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the width of the tooth tips of the moveable blade of Inoue to be between 0.13 mm and 0.19 mm 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). Fukutani identifies the width of the tooth tip as a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to be close to the width of a hair in order to improve the efficiency of the introduction of hair (Page 5, Para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the width of the tooth tips of the moveable blade of Inoue to be between 0.13 mm and 0.19 mm as taught by Fukutani. Doing so is beneficial as this width improves efficiency and introduction of the hair (Fukutani; page 5 para 2).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue further teaches the blade set assembly according to claim 1,
wherein each individual tooth extends in a pointed manner towards a tooth end in a form of a truncated frustum of pyramid (Fig. 1, Blade 31; base of the tooth is wider than the tip, with the tip shape resembling that of a frustum of a pyramid).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue further teaches the blade set assembly according to claim 1
,wherein the tooth tips extend substantially perpendicular (Fig. 1, bottom-most face of Blades 31
are at least substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) to a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, axis parallel to the direction in which the Blades 31 extend) of the hair cutting machine.
Regarding claim 6, Inoue further teaches the blade set assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the tooth tips of the teeth (Fig. 1, the tips of Blades 31 have a bottom-most substantially
flat surface) of the movable blade are formed substantially flat and extend in the width direction
substantially perpendicular to a surface serving as a cutting edge (Fig. 1, underneath surface of
Blades 31 which would contact Fixed Blade Unit 1, this surface extends in a longitudinal
direction of the tooth) and extending downwardly in the longitudinal direction of the respective
tooth and corresponding to the stationary blade, wherein an opposite end of the respective tooth
tip is formed rounded (Fig. 1, the end of the tooth tip opposite to the surface serving as the
cutting edge is seen to be rounded).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue further teaches the blade set assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the tooth tips comprise an edge (Fig. 1, bottom most edge of Blade 31) which is
substantially linear, wherein end portions of the tooth tips are (Fig. 1, leftmost and rightmost surfaces of Blade 31) substantially perpendicular to the edge or partially and/or completely rounded (Fig. 1, connection between edge and each end portion is rounded), and an area adjacent to a cutting edge (Fig. 1, underneath surface of Blades 31 which would contact Fixed Blade Unit 1, this surface extends in a longitudinal direction of the tooth) corresponding to the stationary blade is configured to extend at 90 degrees (Fig. 6A and 6B, area adjacent to cutting edge extends at 90 degrees from the bottom-most face of Blade 31).
Regarding claim 8, Inoue further teaches the blade set assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the tooth tips comprise a rounded edge and/or wavy formed edge (Fig. 6B, the front top
edge in Fig. 6B of Blade 31 is rounded).
Regarding claim 11, Inoue teaches a blade for a blade set for a hair cutting machine,
wherein the blade comprises a movable blade (Fig. 1, Moveable Blade Unit 3) and a base portion (Fig. 5B, the lower half of Moveable Blade Unit 3 which includes Blades 31) with a tooth end (Fig. 5B, the end of the base portion which includes Blades 31), wherein the blade comprises a plurality of teeth (Fig. 5B, Blades 31) formed parallel to each other, wherein the tooth tips (Fig. 6A, tips of Blades 31) of the teeth of the movable blade extend outwardly in a longitudinal direction of the hair cutting machine in a cutting area (Cutting region shown in Fig. 1) of the blade set, wherein the teeth of the movable blade are sized such that a distance between two respective adjacently arranged teeth (Fig. 6A, distance MD) of the plurality of teeth is greater than twice the width of each tooth tip (Fig. 6A, [0045]; the width of a distance between the teeth is more than twice as large as the width of a blade 31) of the teeth of the movable blade. Inoue does not teach that the distance between adjacent teeth is three times the width of the teeth of the movable blade. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the distance between the adjacent teeth to be three times the width of the teeth as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (specification of the claimed invention, page 5 lines 21-23) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Inoue fails to teach wherein the width of the tooth tips of the teeth of the movable blade is between 0.13 mm and 0.19 mm.
However, Fukutani teaches a blade with tooth tips which are 0.1 mm (Fig. 2b, Width w; page 4 para 5 - the width of the tooth tip is 0.1 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the width of the tooth tips of the moveable blade of Inoue to be between 0.13 mm and 0.19 mm 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). Fukutani identifies the width of the tooth tip as a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to be close to the width of a hair in order to improve the efficiency of the introduction of hair (Page 5, Para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the width of the tooth tips of the moveable blade of Inoue to be between 0.13 mm and 0.19 mm as taught by Fukutani. Doing so is beneficial as this width improves efficiency and introduction of the hair (Fukutani; page 5 para 2).
Regarding claim 14, Inoue further teaches the blade according to claim 11, wherein the
tooth tips of the teeth are formed substantially flat (Fig. 1, the tips of Blades 31 have a bottom-
most substantially flat surface), and extend in a width direction substantially perpendicular to a
surface serving as a cutting edge (Fig. 1, underneath surface of Blades 31 which would contact
Fixed Blade Unit 1, this surface extends in a longitudinal direction of the tooth) and extending
downward in a longitudinal direction of the respective tooth, wherein an opposite end of the
respective tooth tip is formed rounded (Fig. 1, the end of the tooth tip opposite to the surface
serving as the cutting edge is seen to be rounded).
Regarding claim 15, Inoue further teaches the blade according to claim 11, wherein the
tooth tips comprise an edge (Fig. 1, bottom most edge of Blade 31) which is substantially formed
linear, wherein end portions of the tooth tips (Fig. 1, leftmost and rightmost surfaces of Blade 31) extend substantially perpendicular to the edge or are partially and/or completely rounded (Fig. 1, connection between edge and each end portion is rounded), and wherein a region adjacent to the cutting edge (Fig. 1, underneath surface of Blades 31 which would contact Fixed Blade Unit 1, this surface extends in a longitudinal direction of the tooth) corresponding to a fixedly connected blade (Fig. 1, Fixed Blade Unit 1) is feasible to extend at about 90 degrees (Fig. 6A and 6B, area adjacent to cutting edge extends at 90 degrees from the bottom-most face of Blade 31).
Regarding claim 16, Inoue further teaches the blade according to claim 11, wherein the
tooth tips have a rounded edge and/or wavy edge (Fig. 6B, the front top edge in Fig. 6B of Blade
31 is rounded).
Regarding claim 17, Inoue teaches a hair cutting machine (Fig. 9) comprising a housing
body (Fig. 2, Trimmer Base Frame 29) and a blade set (Fig. 1, Fixed Blade Unit 1 and Moveable
Blade Unit 3) connected thereto according to claim 1.
Claim 9 and claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Tomoyuki Inoue et al. (US 20120240409 A1 – hereinafter Inoue) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of P. Malobabic et al. (CN 1294544 A- hereinafter Malobabic).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue further teaches the blade set assembly according to claim 1,
wherein an end portion of the tooth tip comprises a straight part (Fig. 1, the tips of Blades
31 have a bottom-most substantially flat surface) extending to the beginning of the rounding of a rounded end portion of the tooth tip (Fig. 1, the end of the tooth tip opposite to the surface in contact with Fixed Blade Unit 1 is seen to be rounded).
Inoue fails to teach wherein a ratio of the lengths of the straight part to the height of a
cutting tooth is in a range of 0.6 to 0.95.
However, Malobabic teaches a tooth tip of a blade where the length of the ratio of a
length of a straight part (Fig. 5, Free End 19 of Tooth 14) to a height of a tooth (Fig. 5, T1) is
approximately 0.66 (page 3 para 7; the length of the straight part is the result of subtracting the
radius R4 of item 22 from the thickness T1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the length of the straight part of Inoue such that the ratio of the length of the
straight part to the height of the cutting tooth is in a range of 0.6 to 0.95 as taught by Malobabic
as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (specification of the
claimed invention, page 11 lines 6-10) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the
claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of
obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Inoue further teaches the blade set assembly according to claim 11,
wherein the end portion of the tooth tip comprises a straight part (Fig. 1, the tips of Blades 31 have a bottom-most substantially flat surface) extending to the beginning of the rounding of the end portion (Fig. 1, the end of the tooth tip opposite to the surface in contact with Fixed Blade Unit 1 is seen to be rounded).
Inoue fails to teach wherein the ratio of the lengths of the straight part to the height of the
cutting tooth is in a range of 0.6 to 0.95.
However, Malobabic teaches a tooth tip of a blade where the length of the ratio of a
length of a straight part (Fig. 5, Free End 19 of Tooth 14) to a height of a tooth (Fig. 5, T1) is
approximately 0.66 (page 3 para 7 ; the length of the straight part is the result of subtracting the
radius of 22 from the thickness T1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the length of the straight part of Inoue such that the ratio of the length of the
straight part to the height of the cutting tooth is in a range of 0.6 to 0.95 as taught by Malobabic
as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (specification of the
claimed invention, page 11 lines 6-10) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the
claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of
obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyuki Inoue et al. (US 20120240409 A1 – hereinafter Inoue) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jan Bennik et al. (EP 2857155 A1- hereinafter Bennik).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue fails to teach the blade set assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the ratio between the width of the tooth tips of the teeth of the movable blade and the
width of a tooth base is about 1:2.
However, Bennik teaches a blade where a ratio between the width of a tooth tip (Fig. 13,
w.sub.tt) to the width of a tooth base (Fig. 12, w.sub.ts) ranges from about 1:5 to about 1:1.25
([0058] and [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the ratio between the width of the tooth tips of the teeth of the movable blade and the width of a tooth base to range from 1:5 to about 1:1.25 as taught by Bennik, and to
further modify the ratio to be about 1:2, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the
claimed range (specification of the claimed invention, page 10 lines 20-23) and since it has been
held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90
(CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyuki Inoue et al. (US 20120240409 A1 – hereinafter Inoue) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Makoto Fukutani et al. (KR 20070024371 A - hereinafter Fukutani).
Regarding claim 12, Inoue fails to teach the blade according to claim 11, wherein the
width of the tooth tips of the teeth is substantially in the range of less than 0.24mm.
However, Fukutani teaches a blade with tooth tips which are substantially in a range of
less than 0.24mm (Fig. 2b, Width w; page 4 para 5 - the width of the tooth tip is 0.1 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the width of the tooth of Inoue to be substantially in a range of less than 0.24
mm as taught by Fukutani. Doing so is beneficial as this width improves efficiency and
introduction of the hair (Fukutani; page 5 para 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Fukutani cannot be used to teach the width of the tips of the teeth of the movable blades since the width of Fukutani used in the rejection of claim 1 is for the tips of the teeth of a stationary blade. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that stationary and fixed blades often share similar features, and it would be reasonable to incorporate a feature from a stationary blade in the design of a moveable blade and vice versa. Applicant additionally asserts that since Inoue is used to teach that the width between two teeth is three times the width of a tooth tip, and the width between the teeth of Inoue is 1.5 mm, it cannot be properly combined with the tooth tips of Fukutani, which teaches tooth tip widths of 0.13 to 0.19 mm. However, the examiner does not rely on the specific width of the distance between the teeth of Inoue, rather the relationship between the width of the tooth tips and the distance between the teeth.
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 3724