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 1, 5, 7, 9, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
at line 9, “adjusting device” should be amended to read “adjustment device” (Examiner notes that each recitation of “adjusting device” throughout the claims should be amended to read “adjustment device”)
at line 10, “the device housing” should be amended to read “a device housing”
at the 5th to last line, “extending” should be amended to read “extend”
at the 5th to last line, delete “which”
at the 4th to last line, “having” should be amended to read “have”
Claim 9: almost all limitations are recited in claim 1; Examiner recommends amending claim 9 to recite only the limitation related to the gripping areas located on the outside of the side walls
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 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, the cutting set is not positively recited and only needs to be capable of comprising the shear blade, shaving comb, etc. Specifically, Examiner notes that the preamble recites an “adjustment device for a cutting set of a hair cutting device”, but the cutting set nor the hair cutting device are positively recited in the body of the claim. As such, it is interpreted that these features are related to the intended use of the adjustment device. Since these structures are not positively recited, any limitations related to the details of the cutting set and hair cutting device are interpreted as being optional, and have been treated as such for purposes of examination.
Claims 5-7, 9, and 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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, 5-7, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge (US 20070144025) in view of Rangus (US 3280468).
Regarding claim 1, McCambridge discloses an adjustment device for a cutting set of a hair cutting device, wherein the cutting set comprises 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 and comprising comb tips (bladeset 12 comprises stationary blade 34, which includes 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, and additional fasteners may be inserted through mounting apertures 48 to assemble bladeset 12 to a cutter; see paragraphs [0019, 0025] and fig. 2) wherein 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 relative to the device housing together with the adjusting device after loosening the at least one connecting element (fasteners 58 can be loosened to allow for adjustment of movable blade 32 relative to stationary blade 34; see paragraph [0025]), 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]), wherein said 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 two side walls extending perpendicular to the bottom (first and second side portions 18, 22 extend perpendicular from floor portion 30; see fig. 1) for receiving and holding the shaving comb and the shear blade attached thereto (first and second side portions 18, 22 are configured to receive corresponding side edges of stationary blade 34; see paragraph [0023] and fig. 1), wherein the two side walls extending parallel to one another (first side portion 18 is parallel to second side portion 22; see figs. 1 and 2), which are connected to the front wall (first and second side portions 18, 22 are connected to lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64; see fig. 2) and having lateral guides on the inside for the parallel alignment of the shaving comb and the shear blade (projections 24, 26; see figs. 1 and 2), the lateral guides being configured as spring tongues (projections 24, 26 guide the positioning of stationary blade 34 and movable blade 32 by exerting a biasing force against stationary blade 34; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 1-2).
McCambridge does not explicitly disclose wherein opposite to the front wall a rear snap hook for locking the shaving comb and the shear blade is provided.
Rangus discloses wherein opposite to the front wall a rear snap hook 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. Examiner notes that while projections 24, 26 of McCambridge perform a similar function, inclusion of resilient clip 61 further improves the security of the rear end of the stationary blade against movement. Therefore, in order to further improve accuracy and efficiency of an adjustment operation, such a modification would be obvious.
Further, 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 5, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge as modified further discloses wherein 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 lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64 connect; 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
358
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge as modified further discloses wherein the projection is formed protruding on an upper edge of the front wall so that it has an abutment for the shear blade (the projection is formed on an upper edge of the combined surface of lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64, such that an 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 as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge as modified further discloses wherein the abutment extends downward in the direction of the bottom of the adjusting device (the abutment extends 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 as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge as modified further discloses wherein the adjusting device has two mutually parallel side walls which are connected to the front wall (first and second side portions 18, 22 are parallel to one another and connected to lower interior wall 62 and upper interior top wall 64; see fig. 2) and lateral guides for the parallel alignment of the shaving comb and the shear blade on the inside (projections 24, 26 guide the positioning of stationary blade 34 and movable blade 32 by exerting a biasing force against stationary blade 34; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 1-2), and gripping areas on the outside (first and second side portions 18, 22 have outer edges which can be held by the user; see figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 19, McCambridge as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
McCambridge as modified further discloses wherein the adjusting device is formed in one piece (blade calibration gauge 10 appears to be one integral construction; see fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that McCambridge does not disclose spring tongues for parallel alignment of the shaving comb, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as discussed above, Examiner notes that the cutting set, which comprises the shaving comb, is not positively recited and thus interpreted as not required by the claim. Second, Examiner interprets that first and second side portions 18, 22 function as the parallel side walls, and that projections 24, 26 act as lateral guides on the inside of the side walls. Due to the structure of projections 24, 26 and the fact that they apply a biasing force against the shaving comb (stationary blade 34), it is Examiner’s position that they are configured as spring tongues. As shown by fig. 3, projections 24, 26 push stationary blade 34 towards the abutment so that toothed edge 36 of movable blade 32 is parallel with toothed edge 38 of stationary blade 34, at least prior to adjustment. Further, Examiner notes that the claim does not currently require that the spring tongues contact the shear blade.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20070214653 to Worgull, drawn to a thinning tool for a hair clipper.
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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights