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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng Fu
(CN 216229515 U – hereinafter Fu) in view of 오태준 (KR 20090009492 U).
Regarding claim 1, Fu teaches a shaver head, comprising a movable blade assembly
(Fig. 2, Moveable Knife 6), a movable blade holder (Fig. 2, Moveable Knife Seat 5), a spring
assembly (Fig. 2, assembly comprising Second Spring 9, Moveable Knife Rest 4, Fixed Cutter 1,
and Knife 2), a blade screen support (Fig. 2, Fixed Knife Rest 3), and a blade screen (Fig. 2,
Shaving Net 7), wherein an upper end of the movable blade holder is fastened to the movable
blade assembly, a bottom surface of the movable blade holder is connected to the spring
assembly, the spring assembly is fastened to the blade screen support (Fig. 2, blade screen is
fastened to spring assembly with the use of Buckle 16), the blade screen support is connected to
the blade screen, and an inner surface of the blade screen abuts against the movable blade
assembly (Fig. 2, examiner interprets that First Spring 8 would bias the moveable blade assembly
such that it abuts against the blade screen), to form a shaver head in which the movable blade holder is directly driven by using an eccentric shaft (Page 4, Para 1 – Eccentric Wheel), the
movable blade holder drives the movable blade assembly to reciprocate and the movable blade
assembly is evenly stressed (Fig. 2, examiner interprets that evenly spaced springs supporting the
moveable blade assembly result in it being evenly stressed); blade teeth (Fig. 2, protrusions of
Moveable Knife 6) are disposed in the movable blade assembly, and top ends of the blade teeth
always abut against the inner surface of the blade screen, to form cross-cutting, to cut off beards
penetrating the blade screen (Fig. 2, examiner interprets that First Spring 8 would bias the
moveable blade assembly such that it abuts against the blade screen, and the reciprocating
motion would then allow any hair penetrating the screen to be cut); and a spring support (Fig. 2,
Moveable Knife Rest 4), a blade holder spring (Fig. 2, First Spring 8), and a body spring (Fig. 2,
Second Spring 9), the spring support and body spring are separately disposed in the spring
assembly, and one end of the body spring abuts against a body (Fig. 2, Fixed Knife 2), so that the
movable blade assembly is evenly stressed during operation (Fig. 2, examiner interprets that
evenly spaced springs supporting the moveable blade assembly result in it being evenly stressed).
Fu does not explicitly disclose the use of spring fastening columns to secure the body
spring.
However, Fu additionally teaches the use of spring fastening columns (Fig. 2, First
Location Column 10) to secure the blade holder spring. The body spring is secured with the use
of a locating hole (Fig. 2, Locating Hole 21) which is disposed in the spring support. Therefore,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the
support for the body spring to be a spring fastening column rather than a locating hole as a
simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Fu further fails to teach that a top end of the blade holder spring is disposed in the spring
assembly and abuts against the moveable blade holder.
However, 오태준 teaches a shaver head where the blade holder spring (Fig. 2, 25) is
disposed in the spring assembly between the moveable blade holder (Fig. 2, 24b) and the spring
assembly (Fig. 2, 23), and therefore a top end of the blade holder spring abuts against the
moveable blade holder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the shaver head of Fu such that the blade holder spring is disposed in the spring
assembly and lies between the moveable blade holder and the spring assembly, allowing a top
end of the blade holder spring to abut against the moveable blade holder as taught by 오태준 as
a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
(see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the blade holder spring being disposed in
the spring assembly and lying between the moveable blade holder and the spring assembly.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fu and 오태준 is detailed in the rejection of
Claim 1 above.
As discussed above, the combination of Fu and 오태준 teaches the shaver head
according to claim 1, wherein a top end of the blade holder spring is disposed in the blade holder
spring and abuts against the bottom of the movable blade holder, and one end of the body spring
is disposed in the body spring and abuts against the body. Fu further teaches that the top end of
the blade holder spring is a blade holder spring portion (Fu, top end of First Spring 8), and that
the one end of the body spring is a body sliding portion (Fu, top end of Second Spring 9).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fu and 오태준 is detailed in the rejection of
Claim 1 above.
Fu further teaches the shaver head according to claim 1, wherein a blade holder hole is
disposed in the middle of the spring support (Fig. 2, hole in the middle of Moveable Knife Rest
4) and fits with the movable blade holder (Fig. 2, Connecting Part 12 of Moveable Knife Seat 5
fits within the blade holder hole), and at least one connecting block (Fig. 2, Buckle 16) is
disposed on a side of the spring support.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fu and 오태준 is detailed in the rejection of
Claim 1 above.
Fu further teaches the shaver head according to claim 1, wherein a connecting mechanism
(Fig. 2, Connecting Part 12) is disposed at the bottom of the movable blade holder (Fig. 2,
Moveable Knife Seat 5) and is capable of penetrating the blade holder hole (Fig. 2, Connecting
Part 12 of Moveable Knife Seat 5 fits within the blade holder hole), and a through hole is
disposed inside the connecting mechanism (Fig. 2, cut-out protruding through the front face of
Connecting Part 12) and is connected to the eccentric shaft of the body, so that the movable
blade holder is capable of reciprocating (Page 3, Para 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fu and 오태준 is detailed in the rejection of
Claim 3 above.
Fu further teaches the shaver head according to claim 3, wherein a connecting mechanism
(Fig. 2, Connecting Part 12) is disposed at the bottom of the movable blade holder (Fig. 2,
Moveable Knife Seat 5) and is capable of penetrating the blade holder hole (Fig. 2, Connecting
Part 12 of Moveable Knife Seat 5 fits within the blade holder hole), and a through hole is disposed inside the connecting mechanism (Fig. 2, cut-out protruding through the front face of
Connecting Part 12) and is connected to the eccentric shaft of the body, so that the movable
blade holder is capable of reciprocating (Page 3, Para 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a certain function that a fixed blade of Fu would lend which may or may also not be found in the claimed invention, the spring fastening columns being horizontally disposed, and the spring fastening columns resting inside of the springs) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, examiner interprets that since the movable blade assembly of Fu is largely symmetrical and supported by the various springs at equal distances from the midline in a central area, in addition to sharing the features of claim 1 which would supposedly lead to the movable blade assembly being evenly stressed during operation, that the moveable blade assembly of Fu is evenly stressed during operation. The cited portion of the specification does not indicate that anything other than the claimed features is what causes the moveable blade assembly to be evenly stressed during operation, and since Fu includes these claimed features, the moveable blade assembly of Fu must also be evenly stressed during operation.
Additionally, at no point in the office action does the examiner assert that any function of the fixed blade of Fu has been retained to teach a claimed feature of the applicant’s invention.
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 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724