DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 9 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. Instant claim refers forward to a claim 10, not a preceding claim. For the purposes of examination, instant claim will be interpreted depend on claim 2 instead of claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozer (US 5,227,262).
Regarding claim 1, Ozer discloses a universal camcorder battery pack comprising:
upper and lower casings 1, 2 (body); and
the body having a plurality of indentations 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 (Figs. 1-3).
The mating of the projections with the indentations assists to secure the battery pack 10 in place on the camcorder (col. 3, lines 34-36). The preamble “for a hair clipper” is viewed as intended use. A prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02: Effect of Preamble. Figures 1 and 3 to Ozer is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
506
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
800
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sommerfeld (US 2021/0167452).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Sommerfeld discloses a battery pack for an electronic device (abstract) comprising:
a generally cylindrical housing 54 defined by an arcuate sidewall 58 extending between a first end surface 62 and a second end surface 66 and defining an interior cavity 70 configured to support at least one battery cell 74; and
a plurality of grooves 82A, 82B (indentations) (Figs. 1 and 2).
The preamble “for a hair clipper” is viewed as intended use. The plurality of indentations would be capable of receiving fasteners from other different hair clippers with similar locking features. A prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02: Effect of Preamble. Figures 1 and 2 to Sommerfeld is provided below.
PNG
media_image3.png
638
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
618
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sommerfeld discloses a first end and a second end with a plurality of terminal contacts 114 at a first end (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Sommerfeld discloses wherein the body has flattened surfaces along the cylindrical shape extending from plurality of contacts (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Sommerfeld discloses wherein the body has a first end opposite a second end, and wherein the plurality of indentations are at different locations along a height that extends from the first end to the second end (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Sommerfeld discloses the indentations are different shapes and sizes (Fig. 9).
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Royle (US 2009/0056137).
Regarding claim 1, Royle discloses a personal care apparatus, including a hair trimming device 3, comprising:
a rechargeable battery 13 housed within handle 2 (body); and
provided with a pair of symmetrical bayonet slots 18 with locking recesses 19 (indentations) at their ends and pin projections 22 (fastener member) configured to be received by locking recess 19 of the bayonet slots 18 to secure trimming device 3 (Fig. 5).
The plurality of indentations would be capable of receiving fasteners from other different hair clippers with similar locking features. Partial Figure 5 to Royle is provided below.
PNG
media_image5.png
738
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Royle discloses the body is substantially cylindrical in shape (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Royle discloses wherein the body has a top first end opposite a bottom second end, and further comprising a plurality of contacts 17, 20 connected to the body at the first end (para 0022; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Royle discloses the handle has flattened surfaces extending from contacts 17 and 20 (Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 10, Royle discloses wherein the rechargeable battery has a raised portion that extends outward from the body (sides of lower portion in Fig. 5).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royle (US 2009/0056137) in view Diebel (US 2019/0253550).
Regarding claim 5, Royle does not teach a button located at the second end.
Diebel, directed to battery case, teaches case button 42908 (Figs. 69-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include a button for the advantage of utilizing the button to determine the amount of battery life remaining (para 0347).
Regarding claim 6, Royle does not teach a plurality of lights at the second end.
Diebel further teaches case has a plurality of indicator lights 42904 on the back that indicate a level of charge of the case battery (Figs. 69-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include a plurality of lights for the advantage of displaying the battery charge level with the indicator lights (para 0350).
Regarding claim 7, Diebel further teaches the plurality of lights surround the button (Figs. 69-71).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights