DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 22-23, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: there are some minor errors and certain terms lack antecedent basis, though the presumed intended meaning is understood.
Claim 17: “laterally” should be amended to read “lateral”; at line 5, “having” should be amended to read “has”
Claim 22: “the respective front wall” lacks antecedent basis; “the first part and the second part of the respective front wall” is recited, however “the first part and the second part” are understood to refer to the “first, inner part” and “second, outer part” of claim 20. Therefore, it is not completely understood if the recitation of claim 22 is intended to refer to a new structure (and if so, these terms lack antecedent basis). It is presumed to be intended that claim 22 is referring to a front wall of the first part and a corresponding front wall of the second part and has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
Claim 23: “the side walls of the first part” and “their outer sides” lack antecedent basis
Claim 25: at line 2, a comma should be added after “adjusting device”; “the respective bottom” lacks antecedent basis
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “connecting element” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “connecting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “connecting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17 is 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.
The term “essentially” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While it is presumed to be intended that the front wall is simply perpendicular to the side walls, the inclusion of the term “essentially” renders the claim indefinite because there is no indication as to exactly how much the angle between the front and side walls may vary. That is, the term “perpendicular” assumes an angle of 90 degrees between the respective walls; however, “essentially perpendicular” raises a question as to how much variance is acceptable to this angle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand whether “essentially perpendicular” encompasses the angle between the walls being 85 degrees, 95 degrees, etc.
Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCambridge (US 20070144025).
Regarding claim 1, McCambridge discloses an adjustment device (blade calibration gauge 10; see fig. 1) for a hair cutting device, and a cutting set which can be connected to the device housing (bladeset 12 is capable of being mounted to a cutter via mounting apertures 48; see paragraph [0019]), the cutting set consisting of a shear blade (bladeset 12 comprises moving blade 32; see paragraph [0018] and figs. 1-2), which comprises shear blade tips (movable blade 32 comprises toothed edge 36; see paragraph [0018] and figs. 1-2), and a shaving comb in connection therewith (bladeset 12 comprises stationary blade 34; see paragraph [0018] and fig. 2) and comprising comb tips (stationary blade 34 comprises toothed edge 38; see paragraph [0018] and fig. 2), and wherein the shaving comb is connected to the shear blade by means of at least one connecting element (stationary blade 34 is connected to movable blade 32 by fasteners 58; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 2) and can thus also be releasably connected to the hair cutting device (bladeset 12 is releasably secured to a cutter through mounting apertures 48; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 2), characterized in that the adjusting device is dimensioned in such a way that it can receive and hold the shaving comb (blade calibration gauge 10 is configured to secure stationary blade 34; see fig. 1) so that the shaving comb can be moved to the device housing together with the adjusting device after loosening the at least one connecting element (stationary blade 34 can be moved to the hair cutter with blade calibration gauge 10 if it is not already secured to the cutter by fasteners as described above), so that a distance between the shear blade tips and the comb tips can be set (toothed edge 36 is adjustable relative to toothed edge 38; see paragraph [0024]).
McCambridge does not explicitly disclose a hair cutting device that has a device housing and wherein the cutting set can be connected to the device housing. However, the device of McCambridge would be capable of working on a hair cutting device as described in at least paragraphs [0019-0020, 0024]. The apparatus of the aforementioned prior art does not need to specifically recite that the hair cutting device includes a device housing and the cutting set being connected to the device housing, as these limitations are not positively claimed and thus are interpreted to be intended use. Since McCambridge discloses an adjustment device (blade calibration gauge 10) that is for use on a hair cutter, the prior art discloses the intended use in addition to the recited limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the shaving comb rests in a defined manner with the comb tips on the adjusting device (lower interior top wall 62 of blade calibration gauge 10 is a first stop for toothed edge 38 of stationary blade 34; see paragraph [0022] and figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the adjusting device is positioned together with the shaving comb (stationary blade 34 is positioned on blade calibration gauge 10; see fig. 1) such that the adjusting device rests in a defined manner on the shear blade tips of the shear blade (upper interior top wall 64 serves as a stop for toothed edge 36 of moving blade 32; see paragraph [0024] and figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the adjusting device has a bottom (floor portion 30; see fig. 2), a front wall extending perpendicular to the bottom (lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64 extend perpendicular from floor portion 30; see fig. 2) and at least one side wall extending perpendicular to the bottom (extension 65 extends perpendicular from floor portion 30; see fig. 2) for receiving and holding the shaving comb and the shear blade attached thereto (floor portion 30, lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64, and extension 65 form a recess 16 that supports stationary blade 34 and movable blade 32; see paragraphs [0022-0023] and figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the bottom includes at least one recess (floor portion 30 includes shaped cutout 28; see paragraph [0017] and fig. 2), which corresponds to the at least one connecting element of the shaving comb (shaped cutout 28 corresponds to the fasteners that are inserted through mounting apertures 48; see fig. 2), for releasing the at least one connecting element of the shaving comb (shaped cutout 28 allows access to bladeset 12 for releasing bladeset 12 from recess 16; see paragraph [0017] and fig. 2), and wherein the front wall of the adjusting device at a front end of the adjusting device remote from the hair cutting device has an inwardly projecting projection (the projection is formed at the point where upper interior top wall 64 extends outwardly from lower interior wall 62 and projects inwardly towards recess 16; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below) for setting a certain offset distance between an edge of the shaving comb and an edge of the shear blade (the edges of lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64 are offset to create distance D, which is the desired offset for toothed edge 36 from toothed edge 38; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the projection is formed protruding on an upper edge of the front wall (the projection is formed on the upper half of the combined surface of lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) so that it has an abutment (the abutment is the portion which rests against toothed edge 38 of stationary blade 34; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) for the shear blade (the abutment rests against toothed edge 36 of movable blade 32; see paragraph [0024] and annotated portion of fig. 3 above), the shaving comb lying under the shear blade being arranged under the abutment in the assembled state of the cutting set (stationary blade 34 rests underneath movable blade 32 and below the abutment; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 7, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the abutment extends downward in the direction of the bottom of the adjusting device (the abutment extends in a downward direction toward floor portion 30, which defines a bottom of blade calibration gauge 10; see fig. 3) tapering to form a slope or has a rounding (the abutment appears to have a rounded corner that toothed edge 38 of stationary blade 34 rests against; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above), the abutment extends elongated on the inside of the front wall (the abutment extends along the inside portion of lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 9, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the adjusting device has two mutually parallel side walls which are connected to the front wall (extensions 65 connect to lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64 and are parallel to one another; see fig. 2) and lateral guides (projections 24 and 26; see figs. 1-2) for the parallel alignment of the shaving comb and the shear blade on the inside (projections 24 and 26 guide the positioning of stationary blade 34 and movable blade 32; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 1-2), and gripping areas on the outside (second side portions 18 and 22 have outer edges which can be held by the user; see figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the adjusting device has two side walls extending parallel to one another (extensions 65 are parallel to one another; see fig. 2), which are connected to the front wall (extensions 65 connect to lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64; see fig. 2) and having lateral guides (projections 24 and 26; see figs. 1-2) on the inside for the parallel alignment of the shaving comb and the shear blade (projections 24 and 26 guide the positioning of stationary blade 34 and movable blade 32; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 1-2), the guides being configured as spring tongues (projections 24 and 26 are configured to hold stationary blade 34 by exerting a biasing force against it; see paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the adjusting device comprises a bottom (floor portion 30; see fig. 2), a front wall extending perpendicular to the bottom (lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64 extend perpendicular from floor portion 30; see fig. 2) and a rear wall extending perpendicular to the bottom (projections 24 and 26 extend perpendicular from floor portion 30; see fig. 2) for receiving and holding the shaving comb and the shear blade attached thereto (projections 24 and 26 are configured to hold stationary blade 34 by exerting a biasing force against it; see paragraph [0025]), wherein lateral limits for the precise positioning of the shaving comb and the shear blade connected therewith and for holding the adjusting device are provided (projections 24 and 26 are configured to exert a biasing force on stationary blade 34 and thus serve as lateral limits for holding the blade such that it cannot be removed from the rear; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 2), and wherein the bottom is placed approximately centrally between the front wall and the rear wall (floor portion 30 is located in a central area between lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64 and projections 24, 26; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the bottom is configured in two parts (floor portion 30 and inclined portion 60; see fig. 2), the two parts in the longitudinal direction of the adjusting device running parallel to one another (floor portion 30 and inclined portion 60 are parallel to one another in that they both extend in the direction of side walls 63 on either side without intersecting; see fig. 2) and firmly connected to one another (floor portion 30 is directly connected to inclined portion 60; see fig. 2), and to their two opposite ends extend upwards and downwards so that they form a box (on either side of floor portion 30 and inclined portion 60, side walls 63 extend upwards and downwards to form a box shape; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the bottom at its rear end opposite the cutting set includes a rear wall extending upwardly substantially perpendicular to the bottom and a rear wall extending downwardly substantially perpendicular to the bottom (projections 24 and 26 extend in the upward direction above floor portion 30 and in the downward direction towards floor portion 30 by their nature of being three dimensional structures. Projections 24 and 26 are perpendicular to floor portion 30, such that a rectangular box shape is formed as recess 16; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the adjusting device has a bottom (extension 65; see fig. 2), a side wall (floor portion 30; see fig. 2), a front wall (lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64; see fig. 2) and a rear wall (projections 24 and 26; see fig. 1), so that these form a box open to the side (the aforementioned walls form a box shape which is open to the side; see fig. 2), in which the hair cutting device with the built-in cutting set can be inserted from the side (bladeset 12 is inserted into recess 16 from the side; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 2), wherein the front wall has a lateral projection (the projection is formed at the point where lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64 connect; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) which comprises an abutment (the projection comprises an abutment; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) for adjusting the shear blade with respect to the shaving comb (the edges of lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64 are offset to create distance D, which is the desired offset for toothed edge 36 from toothed edge 38; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the adjusting device is formed in one piece (blade calibration gauge 10 appears to be one integral construction; see fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge (US 20070144025) in view of Rangus (US 3280468).
Regarding claim 8, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge does not explicitly disclose that opposite to the front wall a rear snap hook for locking the shaving comb and the shear blade is provided.
Rangus discloses that opposite to the front wall a rear snap hook (resilient clip 61; see fig. 4) for locking the shaving comb and the shear blade is provided (resilient clip 61 grips the lower edge of blade 15 to retain its position during adjustment; see col. 3, lines 30-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McCambridge in view of Rangus to include a rear snap hook for locking the shaving comb and shear blade. Rangus discloses that the rear snap hook (resilient clip 61) is configured to prevent movement of fixed blade 15 (see col. 3, lines 30-36). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of securely retaining the fixed blade allows a user to more easily achieve accurate adjustments and could prevent injury caused by an unsecured blade slipping during adjustment. Therefore, in order to improve accuracy, efficiency, and safety of an adjustment operation, such a modification would be obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge (US 20070144025).
Regarding claim 12, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge further discloses that the front wall has an elongated projection at an upper end (the projection is formed at the point where upper interior top wall 64 extends outwardly from lower interior wall 62 and is elongated in the upward/downward direction in that it appears to extend the entire height of upper interior top wall 64; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) for adjusting the shaving comb and the shear blade (the projection allows for stationary blade 34 to be secured during an adjustment operation of movable blade 32; see paragraph [0022]), and that the rear wall is curved inwardly at an upper end and a lower end (projections 24 and 26 are partially curved inwards; see fig. 1) in order to hold the shaving comb and the shear blade in the position set relative to one another (projections 24 and 26 are configured to hold stationary blade 34 by exerting a biasing force against it; see paragraph [0025]).
McCambridge does not explicitly disclose that the front wall has an elongated projection at a lower end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McCambridge to include a second elongated projection at a lower end of the front wall since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, a second projection on the lower end of the front wall would provide extra security for stationary blade 34 such that movement is further restricted. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that locking stationary blade 34 in on both the top and bottom reduces the likelihood of unwanted movement, which could have a negative impact on an adjusting operation (inaccurate positioning, making the operation more cumbersome for a user).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge (US 20070144025) in view of Cromonic (US 2292364).
Regarding claim 16, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge does not explicitly disclose that the adjusting device has a bottom which is web-like and dimensioned in such a way that it can be inserted into a slot provided between the shaving comb and the shear blade in the installed state, wherein the positioning of the shear blade with respect to the shaving comb takes place via the slot.
Cromonic discloses that the adjusting device has a bottom which is web-like and dimensioned in such a way that it can be inserted into a slot (projecting fingers 44 engage openings 45 of single blade 22 and openings 46 in bottom blade 21; see pg. 3, lines 42-47 and figs. 10, 15) provided between the shaving comb and the shear blade in the installed state (projecting fingers 44 extend between stationary blade 20 and single blade 22; see fig. 15), wherein the positioning of the shear blade with respect to the shaving comb takes place via the slot (projecting fingers 44 move single blade 22 and bottom blade 21 into various positions with respect to stationary blade 20; see pg. 3, lines 52-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McCambridge in view of Cromonic to dimension the adjusting device such that it can be inserted into a slot to adjust positioning of the shear blade. As shown in figs. 12-14 of Cromonic, the projecting finger can be used to adjust the positioning of the blades relative to one another. This method of adjusting the blades is simply a different configuration to that of McCambridge, but yields the same results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore expect a similar result when modifying the device of McCambridge in the same fashion.
Claims 17-18 and 20-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge (US 20070144025) in view of Gross (US 20140115865).
Regarding claim 17, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge does not explicitly disclose that the adjusting device has a first bottom and a second bottom which extend parallel to one another and which are in laterally connection with one another by means of side walls, which are arranged parallel to one another, wherein the adjusting device having a front wall which is connected to the side walls and is arranged essentially perpendicular to the side walls, wherein the first and the second bottom extend from the front wall upwards in the direction of a hair cutting device to be inserted.
Gross discloses that the adjusting device has a first bottom and a second bottom (first arm 180 and second arm 184; see fig. 5) which extend parallel to one another (first arm 180 and second arm 184 are parallel to one another; see fig. 5) and which are in laterally connection with one another by means of side walls (the inner portions of first arm 104 and second arm 108 form side walls; see figs. 2-4), which are arranged parallel to one another (the inner portions of first arm 104 and second arm 108 are parallel to one another; see figs. 2-4), wherein the adjusting device having a front wall (back 164; see fig. 5) which is connected to the side walls (in the assembled state, back 164 abuts the inner portions of first arm 104 and second arm 108; see figs. 2-3) and is arranged essentially perpendicular to the side walls (back 164 is formed perpendicularly to the inner portions of first arm 104 and second arm 108; see figs. 2-3), wherein the first and the second bottom extend from the front wall (first arm 180 and second arm 184 extend out from back 164; see paragraph [0027] and fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McCambridge in view of Gross to include a first bottom and second bottom. Gross discloses that the configuration of adjuster 80 and base 76 allows for the two parts to lock together, which prevents adjuster 80 from being uncoupled from base 76 (see paragraph [0027]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this configuration serves as a locking mechanism that allows a user to more securely adjust the blades. Further, the configuration as outlined by Gross is a similar structure that would be expected to improve the device of McCambridge in the same manner. Therefore, modifying the device of McCambridge to have the same type of configuration would be an obvious modification in order to achieve a more secure structure.
McCambridge as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and the second bottom extend from the front wall at an angle of approximately 50° upwards in the direction of a hair cutting device to be inserted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify McCambridge to make the first and second bottom extend at an angle of approximately 50° since It has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed angle, indicating simply that the first and second bottoms extend from the front wall at an angle of approximately 50° upwards (see pg. 6, line 31-pg. 7, line 4). It does not appear that this particular angle solves any stated problem and is therefore interpreted as routine engineering design choice. In the instant case, the device of McCambridge as modified would not operate differently with such an angle, provided that corresponding elements are likewise dimensioned appropriately.
Regarding claim 18, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Gross further discloses that the front wall includes a projection on each of its surfaces (back 164 includes first adjusting arm 168 and second adjusting arm 172; see paragraph [0027] and fig. 5) corresponding to the two bottoms (first adjusting arm 168 and second adjusting arm 172 correspond to first arm 180 and second arm 184; see fig. 5) for adjusting the shear blade relative to the shaving comb (first adjusting arm 168 and second adjusting arm 172 are configured to push moving blade 28 towards fixed blade 20; see paragraphs [0027-0028] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, McCambridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge does not explicitly disclose that the adjusting device is configured in at least two parts, a first, inner part which forms a receptacle for the cutting set and holds it pretensioned, and a second, outer part for holding the preload, the first part and the second part being displaceable relative to one another in order to push the shear blade into a central position.
Gross discloses that the adjusting device is configured in at least two parts (adjuster 80 and base 76; see fig. 3), a first, inner part which forms a receptacle for the cutting set and holds it pretensioned (adjuster 80 supports hair clipper bladeset 16 and is locked into base 76 such that a tension is generated, particularly when a user presses on back 164 to push first and second adjuster arms 168, 172 forward; see paragraphs [0020, 0027] and figs. 3 and 5), and a second, outer part for holding the preload (base 76 supports adjuster 80 and is configured to hold the tension generated during an adjustment operation; see paragraph [0027] and figs. 3-4), the first part and the second part being displaceable relative to one another (a user can press on back 164 such that first and second adjuster arms 168, 172 slide towards second blade tip stop 128; see paragraph [0027] and figs. 3-5) in order to push the shear blade into a central position (adjuster 80 is slidable such that moving blade 28 is biased towards fixed blade 20 during adjustment; see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McCambridge in view of Gross to configure the adjusting device as two parts. Gross discloses that the configuration of adjuster 80 and base 76 allows for the two parts to lock together, which prevents adjuster 80 from being uncoupled from base 76 (see paragraph [0027]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this configuration serves as a locking mechanism that allows a user to more securely adjust the blades. Further, the configuration as outlined by Gross is a similar structure that would be expected to improve the device of McCambridge in the same manner. Therefore, modifying the device of McCambridge to have the same type of configuration would be an obvious modification in order to achieve a more secure structure.
Regarding claim 21, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 20 as described in the rejection above.
Gross further discloses that the first part includes a bottom (first arm 180 and second arm 184; see fig. 5), a front wall (back 164; see fig. 5) and two side walls (the inner portions of first arm 104 and second arm 108 form side walls; see figs. 2-4) which are connected to the bottom (the inner portions of first arm 104 and second arm 108 abut the bottom surface formed by first arm 180 and second arm 184; see fig. 3) and at their parts adjoining the front wall each comprises a spring tongue (first adjusting arm 168 and second adjusting arm 172 are formed on back 164; see fig. 5) for fixing the shear blade in a central position (first adjusting arm 168 and second adjusting arm 172 are configured to push moving blade 28 towards fixed blade 20; see paragraphs [0027-0028] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 20 as described in the rejection above.
Gross further discloses that the first part (adjuster 80 has an open space between first adjusting arm 168 and second adjusting arm 172; see fig. 5) and the second part (base 76 contains open space 112; see fig. 4) of the respective front wall each comprise corresponding recesses opposite each other (open space 112 is positioned below the open space of adjuster 80 and is opposite when viewed from the horizonal plane (for example, viewing fig. 2 from the side); see figs. 2-5), which correspond with the at least one of the connecting elements of the shaving comb (the open space of adjuster 80 and open space 112 are positioned such that fasteners 32 of bladeset 16 correspond; see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 23, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 20 as described in the rejection above.
Gross further discloses that the side walls of the first part on their outer sides adjoining the second part each have a longitudinally extending web (the side walls of u-shaped portion 176 have projections 188, 192 that lock adjuster 80 into base 76; see fig. 5) for the axial guidance for the second part (when u-shaped portion 176 passes through open space 112 and cutout 156, projections 188, 192 are configured to lock adjuster 80 into place; see paragraph [0027]), wherein the second part is configured in such a way that it has corresponding side walls (the inner portions of first arm 104 and second arm 108 correspond to the side walls of adjuster 80; see fig. 4), each of which have an elongated recess or groove for receiving the respective adjacent web (the inner portions contain cutout 156 for receiving u-shaped portion 176 of adjuster 80; see paragraph [0027] and figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 24, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 20 as described in the rejection above.
Gross further discloses that the second part has a bottom (top surface 136 of first arm 104 and second arm 108; see fig. 4), on whose inner surface opposite the shaving comb is provided a projection (projecting member 232 of adjustable boss 88 is positioned through opening 132 of base 76; see paragraph [0031] and figs. 7 and 9) for locking the shaving comb (projecting member 232 extends through opening 44 of lower blade 20 to secure it when a biasing force is applied by biasing member 92; see paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 25, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 20 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge as modified further discloses that in the first and/or in the second part of the adjusting device a recess (recesses are formed within clips 68 along the bottom portion of blade calibration gauge 10; see fig. 2) formed in the respective bottom for receiving of a tool is or are provided (tool 70 is positioned within the recesses of clips 68; see fig. 1), the tool being graspable and removable in a fully closed position of the adjusting device (tool 70 is removable when blade calibration gauge 10 is “closed”, i.e., bladeset 12 is fixed within and ready to be adjusted; see paragraph [0027]) in order to at least partially release the connecting elements of the shaving comb (tool 70 is configured to adjust fasteners 58 of bladeset 12; see paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 26, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 25 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge as modified further discloses that the recess provided in the first and/or second part for receiving the tool is configured as a continuous opening which is circular, cross-shaped or is polygonal in shape (the recesses within clips 68 are semi-circular in order to receive shaft 72 of tool 70; see figs. 1-2) and suitable for securely receiving the tool (the recesses within clips 68 are configured to receive tool 70 when not in use; see fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 3969819 to Pepera, drawn to a hair trimmer attachment; US 20200254637 to ElZein, drawn to a device for adjusting a blade of a hair trimmer; and US 20120198716 to Tonges, drawn to a gauge for aligning hair trimmer blades.
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