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 1-3, 6, 8, 12, 18, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
at the third line from the bottom, “said toothed strip” should be amended to read “said at least one toothed strip”
at the second line from the bottom, “said actuator shaft” should be amended to read “said blade actuator shaft”
Claim 2: at line 3, “said actuator shaft” should be amended to read “said blade actuator shaft”
Claim 3:
at line 2, “pair of said toothed strips” should be amended to read “said at least one toothed strip comprises a pair of said toothed strips”
at line 3, “said actuator shaft” should be amended to read “said blade actuator shaft”
at line 3, “pair of said toothed cogs” should be amended to read “said at least one toothed cog comprises a pair of said toothed cogs”
Claim 6:
at line 2, “said lever” should be amended to read “said adjustment lever”
at line 3, “said knob” should be amended to read “said selector knob”
Claim 8: “each said finger” should be amended to read “each of said at least one finger”
Claim 12:
at line 2, “said lever” should be amended to read “said adjustment lever”
at line 3, “said actuator shaft” should be amended to read “said blade actuator shaft”
at line 3, “said knob” should be amended to read “said selector knob”
Claim 18:
at line 2, “said lever” should be amended to read “said adjustment lever”
at line 3, “said actuator shaft” should be amended to read “said blade actuator shaft”
at line 3, “said knob” should be amended to read “said selector knob”
Claim 22:
at line 5, “said actuator shaft” should be amended to read “said blade actuator shaft”
at line 3, “said actuator shaft” should be amended to read “said blade actuator shaft”
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:
• “biasing member” as recited in claims 8, 13, 14, 18, and 19 (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 § 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 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240190031) in view of Arndt (US 20140259691), and further in view of Eijkelkamp (US 20240083046).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an adjustable bladeset for a hair clipper, said bladeset comprising: a stationary blade having a stationary toothed end with a plurality of stationary teeth (fixed blade 13 contains a plurality of teeth; see fig. 1), an opposite stationary base end and an upper surface (see annotated portion of fig. 7 below); a moving blade having a moving toothed end with a plurality of moving teeth (movable blade 15 contains a plurality of teeth; see fig. 1), said moving blade configured for reciprocal transverse movement relative to said stationary blade on said upper surface (movable blade 15 is configured to reciprocate relative to fixed blade 13; see paragraph [0002]); said stationary blade being linearly displaceable relative to said moving blade by action of an adjustment lever (wrench portion 21 of wrench assembly 2 is configured to move fixed blade 13; see fig. 8 and paragraph [0050]) a blade guide associated with, and fixed to, said upper surface and located on said stationary base end (cutter holder 12 is fixed to the upper surface of fixed blade 13 on the end opposite the plurality of teeth; see figs. 2 and 7), a pair of forwardly extending bars which extend from said blade guide (cutter holder 12 has forwardly extending bars located on each side; see figs. 1-2) and define a transverse travel space for a cam follower which positively engages the moving blade (the forwardly extending bars limit a space that movable blade 15 can travel when engaged with a cam; see figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu does not explicitly disclose a clipper housing, or that the adjustment lever is associated with the clipper housing.
Arndt discloses a clipper housing (hair clipper 10 includes base housing 12 and secondary housing 13, which comprise the clipper housing; see fig. 1), and that the adjustment lever is associated with the clipper housing (blade depth adjuster 17 is associated with base housing 12 and secondary housing 13; see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu in view of Arndt to include a clipper housing. As shown in fig. 1, Arndt teaches a structure (base housing 12 and secondary housing 13) which is known within the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the known structure as taught by Arndt to the device of Wu, since it would provide the predictable result of giving a user a structure to grip that also protects the inner elements.
Wu as modified 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 toothed strip so that rotation of said 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 located on base 23; see fig. 2); and the adjustment lever connected to a blade actuator shaft (as modified, the adjustment lever is connected to pinion 30; see fig. 2) having at least one toothed cog (a toothed gear is located in the center of pinions 30; see fig. 2) configured to engage said toothed strip so that rotation of said actuator shaft causes said linear displacement of said stationary blade relative to said moving blade (the teeth of pinions 30 engages the teeth of rack 34 to induce linear movement between housing 22 and comb 26; see figs. 2-3 and paragraphs [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wu in view of Eijkelkamp to include at least one toothed strip on the blade guide, and wherein the blade actuator shaft has a toothed cog that engages with the toothed strip. Wu discloses a bladeset with a distance adjusting mechanism and Eijkelkamp discloses a known distance adjusting mechanism. In this case, substituting the mechanism of Eijkelkamp into the device of Wu would yield a predictable result, specifically, the ability to adjust the blades. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to use the distance adjusting mechanism of Eijkelkamp to adjust the distance between the blades as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 2, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Eijkelkamp further discloses wherein at least one of: rotation of said actuator shaft between a locked position and an unlocked position causes movement of said stationary blade from an extended position to a retracted position (movement of pinion 30 causes movement of a pinion component relative to housing 22; see paragraphs [0030]); and said adjustment lever is connected to said blade actuator shaft for common rotation (as modified, the adjustment lever is connected to pinion 30).
Regarding claim 3, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Eijkelkamp further discloses wherein said blade guide has a pair of said toothed strips in spaced parallel relationship (base 23 comprises two racks 34 which are configured as parallel rows; see fig. 2 and paragraph [0028]), and said actuator shaft has a pair of said toothed cogs (pinions 30 have a toothed gear and in some examples, may include more than two pinions 30; see paragraph [0031]), each said cog arranged to engage an associated one of said toothed strips (two or more pinions 30 may be configured to cooperate with one or more racks 34; see paragraph [0031]).
Alternatively, it would be obvious to include a second cog such that each cog cooperates with one of the toothed strips, since it has been held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Further, Eijkelkamp discloses that two or more pinions cooperating with one or more racks results in a more precise and stable relative linear movement (see paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 23, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Eijkelkamp further discloses wherein an upper surface of said blade guide is disposed between said pair of said toothed strips (as modified, at least a portion of the upper surface of cutter holder 12 is located between the toothed strips), such that a space on said actuator shaft between said pair of said toothed cogs engages said upper surface of said blade guide (as modified, at least a portion of pinion 30 engages with an upper surface of the blade guide).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240190031) in view of Arndt (US 20140259691), and further in view of Joosten (US 20230029552).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses an adjustable bladeset for a hair clipper, said bladeset comprising: a stationary blade having a stationary toothed end with a plurality of stationary teeth (fixed blade 13 contains a plurality of teeth; see fig. 1), an opposite stationary base end and an upper surface (see annotated portion of fig. 7 below); a moving blade having a moving toothed end with a plurality of moving teeth (movable blade 15 contains a plurality of teeth; see fig. 1), said moving blade configured for reciprocal transverse movement relative to said stationary blade on said upper surface (movable blade 15 is configured to reciprocate relative to fixed blade 13; see paragraph [0002]); said stationary blade being linearly displaceable relative to said moving blade by action of an adjustment lever (wrench portion 21 of wrench assembly 2 is configured to move fixed blade 13; see fig. 8 and paragraph [0050]) said adjustment lever is provided with a selector knob (see annotated portion of fig. 8 below); and a selector ring which rotatably engages said selector knob and which is rotatable relative to said selector knob (nut portion 231 is configured to rotate; see paragraph [0047]), such that said selector ring is configured for rotating between two positions (wrench portion 21 is configured to move in a variety of positions due to the interaction of driving column 24 and second slot 121; see figs. 7-8), a locked position causing smooth lever movement (the interaction of driving column 24 and second slot 121 allow for a smooth rotation by a user; see figs. 7-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
298
331
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wu does not explicitly disclose a clipper housing, or an adjustment lever associated with the clipper housing.
Arndt discloses a clipper housing (hair clipper 10 includes base housing 12 and secondary housing 13, which comprise the clipper housing; see fig. 1), and an adjustment lever associated with the clipper housing (blade depth adjuster 17 is associated with base housing 12 and secondary housing 13; see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu in view of Arndt to include a clipper housing. As shown in fig. 1, Arndt teaches a structure (base housing 12 and secondary housing 13) which is known within the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the known structure as taught by Arndt to the device of Wu, since it would provide the predictable result of giving a user a structure to grip that also protects the inner elements.
Wu as modified does not explicitly disclose an unlocked position causing indexed lever movement.
Joosten teaches an unlocked position causing indexed lever movement (indexing mechanism 35, 36, 37, and 38 allows for indexed movement; see fig. 2; see figs. 2, 6A-6B, and paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wu in view of Joosten to include wherein a user can actuate the lever to cause indexed movement of the adjustment mechanism. Joosten teaches an indexing mechanism (spring 35, central bushing 36, annular recess 37, and triangular recess 38; see fig. 2) which allows a user to position the second shaving unit portion relative to the first shaving unit portion in any of at least n indexed positions (see paragraph [0036]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the known technique of indexed movement as taught by Joosten to further improve the modified device of Wu. A lever having indexed movement would be a predictable result as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses a clipper bladeset including a stationary blade having a stationary toothed end with a plurality of stationary teeth (fixed blade 13 contains a plurality of teeth; see fig. 1), an opposite stationary base end and an upper surface (see annotated portion of fig. 7 below), and a moving blade having a moving toothed end with a plurality of moving teeth (movable blade 15 contains a plurality of teeth; see fig. 1), said moving blade configured for reciprocal transverse movement relative to said stationary blade on said upper surface (movable blade 15 is configured to reciprocate relative to fixed blade 13; see paragraph [0002]); said stationary blade being linearly displaceable relative to said moving blade by action of an adjustment lever (wrench portion 21 of wrench assembly 2 is configured to move fixed blade 13; see fig. 8 and paragraph [0050]) said adjustment lever is provided with a selector knob (see annotated portion of fig. 8 below); and a selector ring which rotatably engages said selector knob and which is rotatable relative to said selector knob (nut portion 231 is configured to rotate; see paragraph [0047]), such that said selector ring is configured for rotating between two positions (wrench portion 21 is configured to move in a variety of positions due to the interaction of driving column 24 and second slot 121; see figs. 7-8), a locked position causing smooth lever movement (the interaction of driving column 24 and second slot 121 allow for a smooth rotation by a user; see figs. 7-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
555
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wu does not explicitly disclose a hair clipper, comprising: a clipper housing; and wherein the adjustment lever is associated with said clipper housing.
Arndt discloses a hair clipper, comprising: a clipper housing (hair clipper 10 includes base housing 12 and secondary housing 13, which comprise the clipper housing; see fig. 1); and wherein the adjustment lever is associated with said clipper housing (blade depth adjuster 17 is associated with base housing 12 and secondary housing 13; see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu in view of Arndt to include a clipper housing. As shown in fig. 1, Arndt teaches a structure (base housing 12 and secondary housing 13) which is known within the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the known structure as taught by Arndt to the device of Wu, since it would provide the predictable result of giving a user a structure to grip that also protects the inner elements.
Wu as modified does not explicitly disclose an unlocked position causing indexed lever movement.
Joosten teaches an unlocked position causing indexed lever movement (indexing mechanism 35, 36, 37, and 38 allows for indexed movement; see fig. 2; see figs. 2, 6A-6B, and paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wu in view of Joosten to include wherein a user can actuate the lever to cause indexed movement of the adjustment mechanism. Joosten teaches an indexing mechanism (spring 35, central bushing 36, annular recess 37, and triangular recess 38; see fig. 2) which allows a user to position the second shaving unit portion relative to the first shaving unit portion in any of at least n indexed positions (see paragraph [0036]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the known technique of indexed movement as taught by Joosten to further improve the modified device of Wu. A lever having indexed movement would be a predictable result as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5-10, 12-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240190031) in view of Arndt (US 20140259691), in view of Eijkelkamp (US 20240083046), and further in view of Joosten (US 20230029552).
Regarding claim 5, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said adjustment lever is provided with a selector knob (see annotated portion of fig. 8 below) and a selector ring (nut portion 231; see fig. 8) which rotatably engages said selector knob and which is rotatable relative to said selector knob (nut portion 231 is configured to rotate; see paragraph [0047]), such that said selector ring is configured for rotating between two positions (wrench portion 21 is configured to move in a variety of positions due to the interaction of driving column 24 and second slot 121; see figs. 7-8), a locked position causing smooth lever movement (the interaction of driving column 24 and second slot 121 allow for a smooth rotation by a user; see figs. 7-8).
PNG
media_image3.png
555
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wu as modified does not explicitly disclose an unlocked position causing indexed lever movement.
Joosten teaches an unlocked position causing indexed lever movement (indexing mechanism 35, 36, 37, and 38 allows for indexed movement; see fig. 2; see figs. 2, 6A-6B, and paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wu in view of Joosten to include wherein a user can actuate the lever to cause indexed movement of the adjustment mechanism. Joosten teaches an indexing mechanism (spring 35, central bushing 36, annular recess 37, and triangular recess 38; see fig. 2) which allows a user to position the second shaving unit portion relative to the first shaving unit portion in any of at least n indexed positions (see paragraph [0036]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the known technique of indexed movement as taught by Joosten to further improve the modified device of Wu. A lever having indexed movement would be a predictable result as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said selector knob has a splined shaft projecting from said lever (threaded portion 233; see fig. 8) and a toothed ring (tooth block 25; see fig. 8) associated with said knob has a splined bore for slidably engaging said splined shaft (bevel tooth block 252 engages with the corresponding surface of bevel tooth portion 232; see figs. 7-8).
Eijkelkamp further discloses a splined bore on said actuator shaft (as modified, the splined shaft could replace axle 28 such that it engages with the bore in pinion 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wu in view of Eijkelkamp to make the splined shaft engage with the splined bore. Wu discloses a bladeset with a distance adjusting mechanism and Eijkelkamp discloses a known distance adjusting mechanism. In this case, substituting the mechanism of Eijkelkamp into the device of Wu would yield a predictable result, specifically, the ability to adjust the blades. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to use the distance adjusting mechanism of Eijkelkamp to adjust the distance between the blades as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 7, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said adjustment lever has a biasing member (spring 22; see fig. 8) that biases said toothed ring on said splined shaft away from said selector knob (spring 22 is positioned between the inner end of wrench portion 21 and fixed tooth block 25 so that fixed tooth block 25 moves towards one side of bevel tooth portion 232; see fig. 8 and paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu to have the biasing element bias the toothed ring away from the selector knob. Wu discloses a spring that biases the toothed ring (fixed tooth block 25) towards one side of the splined shaft (bevel tooth portion 232). In both cases, the biasing element has the same function of biasing the toothed ring and splined shaft into engagement. Through a rearrangement of parts, the spring could be configured to bias the fixed tooth block away from the selector knob. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably modify the device in this manner since it has been held that rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device is unpatentable (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 8, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said selector ring has at least one finger projecting along the splined shaft (a plurality of fingers exist as part of bevel tooth portion 232; see annotated portion of fig. 8 below), each said finger configured for grasping the toothed ring (bevel tooth block 252 engages with the corresponding surface of bevel tooth portion 232; see figs. 7-8) so that said biasing member is held between the toothed ring and the selector knob (the rearrangement of parts in claim 7 results in spring 22 being located between fixed tooth block 25 and the selector knob so that spring 22 can bias the fixed tooth block 25 away from the selector knob).
PNG
media_image3.png
555
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said toothed ring has a radially enlarged flange configured for accommodating tips of each of said at least one finger (fixed tooth 25 includes bevel tooth block 252 which engages with the corresponding surface of bevel tooth portion 232; see figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 10, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said selector knob is associated with said adjustment lever so that rotation of the selector ring relative to said adjustment lever between the locked and unlocked positions causes movement of the toothed ring along the splined shaft (rotating of wrench portion 21 results in interaction of fixed tooth block 25 and bevel tooth portion 232; see paragraph [0050]), in said locked position, said at least one finger pulls the toothed ring towards said adjustment lever (the fingers of bevel tooth portion 232 engage with bevel tooth block 252 of fixed tooth block 25; see figs. 7-9), overcoming the force of a coiled spring (spring 22 is positioned between the inner end of wrench portion 21 and fixed tooth block 25 so that fixed tooth block 25 moves towards one side of bevel tooth portion 232; see figs. 8-9 and paragraph [0049]), thus achieving smooth motion of the adjustment lever (the interaction of driving column 24 and second slot 121 allow for a smooth rotation by a user; see figs. 7-8), and as said selector knob is rotated, said at least one finger moves down the splined shaft away from the adjustment lever (the plurality of fingers extend out from bevel tooth portion 232 and away from wrench portion 21; see fig. 8), and places said toothed ring in biased engagement with a gear bushing (positioning groove 211; see fig. 9) fixed to the clipper housing (positioning groove 211 is fixed in cutter head assembly 1, which is configured to attach to a clipper housing as taught by Arndt – see claim 1).
Joosten further teaches a clicking or indexed movement of said adjustment lever (indexing mechanism 35, 36, 37, and 38 allows for indexed movement; see fig. 2; see figs. 2, 6A-6B, and paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said adjustment lever has a splined shaft projecting from said lever (threaded portion 233; see fig. 8) and a toothed ring (tooth block 25; see fig. 8) associated with said knob has a splined bore for slidably engaging said splined shaft (bevel tooth block 252 engages with the corresponding surface of bevel tooth portion 232; see figs. 7-8).
Wu as modified does not explicitly disclose said splined shaft engaging a splined bore on said actuator shaft.
Eijkelkamp discloses said splined shaft engaging a splined bore on said actuator shaft (as modified, the splined shaft could replace axle 28 such that it engages with the bore in pinion 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wu in view of Eijkelkamp to make the splined shaft engage with the splined bore. Wu discloses a bladeset with a distance adjusting mechanism and Eijkelkamp discloses a known distance adjusting mechanism. In this case, substituting the mechanism of Eijkelkamp into the device of Wu would yield a predictable result, specifically, the ability to adjust the blades. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to use the distance adjusting mechanism of Eijkelkamp to adjust the distance between the blades as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 13, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said adjustment lever has a biasing member (spring 22; see fig. 8) that biases said toothed ring on said splined shaft away from a handle on said adjustment lever (spring 22 is positioned between the inner end of wrench portion 21 and fixed tooth block 25 so that fixed tooth block 25 moves towards one side of bevel tooth portion 232; see fig. 8 and paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu to have the biasing element bias the toothed ring away from the selector knob. Wu discloses a spring that biases the toothed ring (fixed tooth block 25) towards one side of the splined shaft (bevel tooth portion 232). In both cases, the biasing element has the same function of biasing the toothed ring and splined shaft into engagement. Through a rearrangement of parts, the spring could be configured to bias the fixed tooth block away from the selector knob. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably modify the device in this manner since it has been held that rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device is unpatentable (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 14, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said selector ring has a cam (pin shaft 23; see fig. 8) and a plurality of fingers projecting from said cam along the splined shaft (bevel tooth portion 232 project from pin shaft 23 along threaded portion 233; see fig. 8), each said finger configured for grasping the toothed ring (bevel tooth block 252 engages with the corresponding surface of bevel tooth portion 232; see figs. 7-8) so that said biasing member is held between the toothed ring and the selector ring (rearrangement of parts results in spring 22 being located between fixed tooth block 25 and the selector knob so that spring 22 can bias the fixed tooth block 25 away from the selector knob).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu to have the biasing element bias the toothed ring away from the selector knob. Wu discloses a spring that biases the toothed ring (fixed tooth block 25) towards one side of the splined shaft (bevel tooth portion 232). In both cases, the biasing element has the same function of biasing the toothed ring and splined shaft into engagement. Through a rearrangement of parts, the spring could be configured to bias the fixed tooth block away from the selector knob. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably modify the device in this manner since it has been held that rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device is unpatentable (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 15, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses further including a gear bushing (second mounting block 116; see fig. 9) affixed to said housing in registry with said splined shaft and having a toothed exterior surface selectively engageable by said toothed ring (second mounting block 116 has a surface that is configured to mate with threaded portion 233; see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 16, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said selector knob is associated with said adjustment lever so that rotation of the selector ring relative to said adjustment lever between the locked and unlocked positions causes movement of the toothed ring along the splined shaft (rotating of wrench portion 21 results in interaction of fixed tooth block 25 and bevel tooth portion 232; see paragraph [0050]), in said locked position, at least one finger pulls the toothed ring backwards out of engagement with said gear bushing overcoming the force of a coiled spring, thus achieving smooth motion of the adjustment lever (the interaction of driving column 24 and second slot 121 allow for a smooth rotation by a user; see figs. 7-8), and as said selector ring is rotated, said at least one finger moves down the splined shaft away from the adjustment lever (the plurality of fingers extend out from bevel tooth portion 232 and away from wrench portion 21; see fig. 8), and place said toothed ring in biased engagement with said gear bushing (bevel tooth portion 232 is in biased engagement with second mounting block 116; see fig. 9).
Joosten further teaches a clicking or indexed movement of said adjustment lever (indexing mechanism 35, 36, 37, and 38 allows for indexed movement; see fig. 2; see figs. 2, 6A-6B, and paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 18, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said adjustment lever has a splined shaft projecting from said lever (threaded portion 233; see fig. 8) and a toothed ring (tooth block 25; see fig. 8) associated with said knob has a splined bore for slidably engaging said splined shaft (bevel tooth block 252 engages with the corresponding surface of bevel tooth portion 232; see figs. 7-8).
Eijkelkamp further discloses the adjustment lever engaging a splined bore on said actuator shaft (as modified, the splined shaft could replace axle 28 such that it engages with the bore in pinion 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wu in view of Eijkelkamp to make the splined shaft engage with the splined bore. Wu discloses a bladeset with a distance adjusting mechanism and Eijkelkamp discloses a known distance adjusting mechanism. In this case, substituting the mechanism of Eijkelkamp into the device of Wu would yield a predictable result, specifically, the ability to adjust the blades. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to use the distance adjusting mechanism of Eijkelkamp to adjust the distance between the blades as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 19, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 18 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said adjustment lever has a biasing member (spring 22; see fig. 8) that biases said toothed ring on said splined shaft away from a handle on said adjustment lever (spring 22 is positioned between the inner end of wrench portion 21 and fixed tooth block 25 so that fixed tooth block 25 moves towards one side of bevel tooth portion 232; see fig. 8 and paragraph [0049]), said selector ring has a cam (pin shaft 23; see fig. 8) and a plurality of fingers (bevel tooth portion 232; see fig. 8) projecting from said cam along the splined shaft (bevel tooth portion 232 project from pin shaft 23 along threaded portion 233; see fig. 8), each said finger configured for grasping the toothed ring (bevel tooth block 252 engages with the corresponding surface of bevel tooth portion 232; see figs. 7-8) so that said biasing member is held between the toothed ring and the selector ring (rearrangement of parts results in spring 22 being located between fixed tooth block 25 and the selector knob so that spring 22 can bias the fixed tooth block 25 away from the selector knob).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu to have the biasing element bias the toothed ring away from the selector knob. Wu discloses a spring that biases the toothed ring (fixed tooth block 25) towards one side of the splined shaft (bevel tooth portion 232). In both cases, the biasing element has the same function of biasing the toothed ring and splined shaft into engagement. Through a rearrangement of parts, the spring could be configured to bias the fixed tooth block away from the selector knob. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably modify the device in this manner since it has been held that rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device is unpatentable (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 20, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 19 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses a gear bushing (second mounting block 116; see fig. 9) affixed to said housing in registry with said splined shaft and having a toothed exterior surface selectively engageable by said toothed ring (second mounting block 116 has a surface that is configured to mate with threaded portion 233; see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 21, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 20 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses wherein said selector knob is associated with said adjustment lever so that rotation of the selector ring relative to said adjustment lever between the locked and unlocked positions causes movement of the toothed ring along the splined shaft (rotating of wrench portion 21 results in interaction of fixed tooth block 25 and bevel tooth portion 232; see paragraph [0050]), in said locked position, at least one finger pulls the toothed ring backwards out of engagement with said gear bushing overcoming the force of a coiled spring, thus achieving smooth motion of the adjustment lever (the interaction of driving column 24 and second slot 121 allow for a smooth rotation by a user; see figs. 7-8), and as said selector knob is rotated, said at least one finger moves down the splined shaft away from the adjustment lever (the plurality of fingers extend out from bevel tooth portion 232 and away from wrench portion 21; see fig. 8), and place said toothed ring in biased engagement with said gear bushing (bevel tooth portion 232 is in biased engagement with second mounting block 116; see fig. 9).
Joosten further teaches a clicking or indexed movement of said adjustment lever (indexing mechanism 35, 36, 37, and 38 allows for indexed movement; see fig. 2; see figs. 2, 6A-6B, and paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 22, Wu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Wu as modified further discloses a blade guide associated with said upper surface and located on said stationary base end (cutter holder 12 is fixed to the upper surface of fixed blade 13 on the end opposite the plurality of teeth; see figs. 2 and 7).
Wu as modified 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 toothed strip so that rotation of said 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 located on base 23; see fig. 2); and the adjustment lever connected to a blade actuator shaft (as modified, the adjustment lever is connected to pinion 30; see fig. 2) having at least one toothed cog (a toothed gear is located in the center of pinions 30; see fig. 2) configured to engage said toothed strip so that rotation of said actuator shaft causes said linear displacement of said stationary blade relative to said moving blade (the teeth of pinions 30 engages the teeth of rack 34 to induce linear movement between housing 22 and comb 26; see figs. 2-3 and paragraphs [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wu in view of Eijkelkamp to include at least one toothed strip on the blade guide, and wherein the blade actuator shaft has a toothed cog that engages with the toothed strip. Wu discloses a bladeset with a distance adjusting mechanism and Eijkelkamp discloses a known distance adjusting mechanism. In this case, substituting the mechanism of Eijkelkamp into the device of Wu would yield a predictable result, specifically, the ability to adjust the blades. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to use the distance adjusting mechanism of Eijkelkamp to adjust the distance between the blades as taught by Wu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-23 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.
Conclusion
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