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 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:
• “biasing member” as recited in at least claim 7 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the written description does not appear to clearly support the limitation “wherein the cam follower is disposed between the pair of forwardly extending bars and is in contacting engagement with at least one of the forwardly extending bars during operation”. Examiner notes that paragraph [0041] of the instant specification states that a pair of forwardly extending bars extend from the blade guide and define a transverse travel space for a cam follower. However, there is no recitation of the cam follower being disposed between the pair of forwardly extending bars or being in contacting engagement with at least one of the forwardly extending bars during operation.
Regarding claim 23, the written description does not appear to clearly support the limitations “wherein an upper surface of said blade guide is disposed between said pair of said toothed strips” and “a space on said actuator shaft between said pair of said toothed cogs engages said upper surface of said blade guide”. Examiner notes that paragraph [0040] of the instant specification states that the blade guide has an upper surface with at least one toothed strip. However, the specification does not clearly indicate that the upper surface is disposed between the pair of toothed strips. Likewise, the specification does not disclose the manner with which the space on the actuator shaft engages this upper surface.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are 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 claims 1, 11, and 17, the claim limitation “an adjustment lever associated with the clipper housing” is unclear. Specifically, the term “associated” does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the relationship between the adjustment lever and the clipper housing. Stating that the two structures are associated suggests that the structures are related, but does not detail whether they are fixed to one another, simply located near one another, intended to be used together, etc. Examiner recommends deletion of the limitation “associated with the clipper housing”.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the adjustment lever and clipper housing are not positively recited. It is presumed to be intended that at least the adjustment lever is required, since further elements of the adjustment lever are recited in at least claim 11. However, as currently recited, it is not clear whether or not this interpretation is correct. Examiner recommends positively reciting both the adjustment lever and the clipper housing.
Regarding claim 17, the adjustment lever is not positively recited. It is presumed to be intended that the adjustment lever is required, since further elements of the adjustment lever are recited in at least claim 17. However, as currently recited, it is not clear whether or not this interpretation is correct. Examiner recommends positively reciting the adjustment lever.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240190031) in view of Eijkelkamp (US 20240083046).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an adjustable bladeset for a hair clipper having a clipper housing, said bladeset comprising: a stationary blade having a stationary toothed end with a plurality of stationary teeth (fixed blade 13 comprises a plurality of teeth at one end; see paragraph [0039] and fig. 1), an opposite stationary base end and an upper surface (fixed blade 13 comprises an opposite base end at the end opposite the plurality of teeth, and an upper surface which faces movable blade 15; see fig. 1); a moving blade having a moving toothed end with a plurality of moving teeth (movable blade 15 comprises a plurality of teeth at one end; see paragraph [0039] and fig. 1), said moving blade configured for reciprocal transverse movement relative to said stationary blade on said upper surface (movable blade 15 is positioned on movable cutter holder 14 for a reciprocating transverse movement; see paragraph [0038]); said stationary blade being linearly displaceable relative to said moving blade by action of an adjustment lever associated with the clipper housing (fixed blade 13 is positioned on fixed cutter holder 12, which is acted upon by wrench assembly 2 for adjusting the distance between fixed blade 13 and movable blade 15; see paragraph [0047]); a blade guide associated with, and fixed to, said upper surface and located on said stationary base end (bottom plate 11 is slidably fixed to the upper surface of fixed blade 13 through fixed cutter holder 12; see paragraph [0047] and fig. 1), a pair of forwardly extending bars which extend from said blade guide and define a transverse travel space for a cam follower (a pair of forwardly extending bars are formed as part of bottom plate 11 and define a travel space for movable cutter holder 14; see paragraph [0038]), wherein the cam follower is disposed between the pair of forwardly extending bars and is in contacting engagement with at least one of the forwardly extending bars during operation so as to be guided thereby (movable cutter holder 14 is positioned between the pair of forwardly extending bars such that they limit movement of movable cutter holder 14 during operation; see paragraph [0038]) and further positively engages the moving blade (movable blade 15 is arranged on movable cutter holder 14; see paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu does not explicitly disclose said blade guide having at least one toothed strip; and the adjustment lever connected to a blade actuator shaft having at least one toothed cog configured to engage said at least one toothed strip so that rotation of said blade actuator shaft causes said linear displacement of said stationary blade relative to said moving blade.
Eijkelkamp discloses said blade guide having at least one toothed strip (a pair of racks 34 are formed on housing 22, which corresponds to the blade guide; see paragraph [0028] and fig. 2); and the adjustment lever connected to a blade actuator shaft having at least one toothed cog (axle 28 supports a pair of pinions 30; see paragraph [0029] and fig. 2) configured to engage said at least one toothed strip so that rotation of said blade actuator shaft causes said linear displacement of said stationary blade relative to said moving blade (pinions 30 engage with racks 34 to translate rotational movement into a linear movement between housing 22 and comb 26; see paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu in view of Eijkelkamp to include at least one toothed strip and at least one toothed cog for causing linear displacement of the stationary blade relative to the moving blade. Wu discloses a bladeset in which the adjustment lever has a bevel tooth configuration to translate rotational movement of wrench portion 21 into linear movement of fixed blade 13 (see paragraph [0047]). Eijkelkamp discloses an alternative system for translating rotational movement into linear movement, where pinions 30 interact with racks 34 to adjust a distance between housing 22 and comb 26 (see paragraph [0030]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the configuration of Eijkelkamp is an alternative structure for translating rotational movement into linear movement, and thus would be a simple substitution of known elements. In the instant case, replacing the bevel tooth system of Wu with the rack and pinion system of Eijkelkamp would still provide a way to adjust distance between the stationary blade and moving blade. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein at least one of: rotation of said blade actuator shaft between a locked position and an unlocked position causes movement of said stationary blade from an extended position to a retracted position; and said adjustment lever is connected to said blade actuator shaft for common rotation (as modified, wrench portion 21 is connected to the blade actuator shaft in order to translate rotational movement to linear movement; see paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Eijkelkamp further discloses wherein said at least one toothed strip comprises a pair of said toothed strips in spaced parallel relationship (a pair of racks 34 are formed in parallel with a gap in between; see paragraph [0028] and fig. 2), and said at least one toothed cog comprises a pair of said toothed cogs (a pair of pinions 30 are formed on axle 28; see paragraph [0029] and fig. 2), each of said at least one toothed cog arranged to engage an associated one of said toothed strips (pinions 30 engage with racks 34 to translate rotational movement into a linear movement between housing 22 and comb 26; see paragraph [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 16-19, filed 7/16/2026, with respect to claims 5-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 5-22 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5-10, 12-16, and 18-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or otherwise render obvious in combination with all claim limitations an adjustable bladeset for a hair clipper having an adjustment lever provided with a selector knob and a selector ring.
The closest prior art of record is Wu (US 20240190031). Wu discloses an adjustable bladeset for a hair clipper having a clipper housing, said bladeset comprising: a stationary blade having a stationary toothed end with a plurality of stationary teeth (fixed blade 13 comprises a plurality of teeth at one end; see paragraph [0039] and fig. 1), an opposite stationary base end and an upper surface (fixed blade 13 comprises an opposite base end at the end opposite the plurality of teeth, and an upper surface which faces movable blade 15; see fig. 1); a moving blade having a moving toothed end with a plurality of moving teeth (movable blade 15 comprises a plurality of teeth at one end; see paragraph [0039] and fig. 1), said moving blade configured for reciprocal transverse movement relative to said stationary blade on said upper surface (movable blade 15 is positioned on movable cutter holder 14 for a reciprocating transverse movement; see paragraph [0038]); said stationary blade being linearly displaceable relative to said moving blade by action of an adjustment lever associated with the clipper housing (fixed blade 13 is positioned on fixed cutter holder 12, which is acted upon by wrench assembly 2 for adjusting the distance between fixed blade 13 and movable blade 15; see paragraph [0047]).
Wu does not explicitly disclose a hair clipper wherein said adjustment lever is provided with a selector knob; and a selector ring which rotatably engages said selector knob and which is rotatable relative to said selector knob, such that said selector ring is configured for rotating between two positions, a locked position causing smooth lever movement, and an unlocked position causing indexed lever movement. Further, no other prior art of record discloses or otherwise renders obvious details related to the adjustment lever, particularly to the selector knob and selector ring. Therefore, claims 11 and 17 make a contribution over the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: CN 210551376 to Xie, drawn to an electric hair cutter head pitch adjusting device; US 20200198159 to Werner, drawn to a blade pad assembly for a hair cutting apparatus; US 20160279813 to Buck, Jr., drawn to a hair trimmer blade set with adjustable blades; and US 5084974 to Sukow, drawn to a clipper with a lever actuated adjustable comb.
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