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 § 112
Claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 has been amended to include “wherein each movable blade is individually detachable from the drive mechanism”. This limitation is not detailed anywhere in the specification, nor is it definitively shown in the drawings.
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 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xiao- qun Zheng (CN 111329392 A – hereinafter Zheng) in view of Shou-mu Wang et al. (CN 112674642 A – hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches a cutting apparatus, comprising: N groups of blades
each comprising a fixed blade (Fig. 2, First Blade 107) and a movable blade (Fig. 3, Second
Blade 108), wherein: N fixed blades are arranged linearly (Fig. 5, First Blades 107), where N is a
positive integer greater than or equal to 2 (Fig. 5, there are two First Blades 107); and N movable
blades are arranged linearly (Fig. 5, Second Blades 108), each of the N movable blades
corresponding to one of the N fixed blades, each of the N fixed blades and each of the N
movable blades having a toothed edge (Fig. 1, Teeth 103), and the toothed edge of the fixed
blade being tightly fitted to the toothed edge of the movable blade (Page 9, Para 4); and a drive
mechanism (Fig. 4, drive mechanism including Guide Structure 1022 and Shaft Body 1021) in a
linkage engagement with the movable blade (Fig. 1) and configured to drive a reciprocation of
the movable blade relative to the fixed blade between a first position and a second position (Page 9, para 1), at least two movable blades having movement directions opposite to each other (Fig.
1).
Zheng fails to teach that the fixed blades and moveable blades are located within a
housing, the toothed edges of the fixed and moveable blades protruding from an opening of the
housing and towards and outer side of the housing.
However, Wang teaches a cutting apparatus where the fixed blades and moveable blades
(Fig. 6, Cutting Piece 3 comprises a First Cutter 301 and a Second Cutter 302) are located within
a housing (Fig. 6, Roller 1), the toothed edges of the fixed and moveable blades protruding from
an opening (Fig. 1, Slot 101) of the housing and towards and outer side of the housing (Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of Zheng to include
the limitations of claim 1 as taught by Wang. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the blades to cut
through objects stuck on and in the cutting apparatus (Wang; Page 5, Para 3).
Zheng and Wang do not explicitly teach that each movable blade is individually detachable from the drive mechanism, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of the combination of Zheng and Wang such that each movable blade is detachable from the drive mechanism as it has been held that making a feature separable is obvious “if it were considered desirable for any reason” In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). It is well known in the art that it can be desirable to replace a blade when it becomes dull, for which purpose the blade must be detachable. Further, if one movable blade of Zheng was made to be detachable, it would be individually detachable since it is not integral with or directly attached to the other movable blade.
Regarding claim 2, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the drive mechanism comprises a rotary shaft (Fig. 4, Shaft Body 1021) and a plurality
of drive members (Fig. 5, 1022 and Bearings 101) arranged at intervals on the rotary shaft,
wherein: the drive mechanism comprises N-1 drive members (Fig. 5, there is only one Guide
Structure 1022); when the drive mechanism comprises N-1 drive members, one of the N-1 drive
members is disposed between the two adjacent movable blades (Fig. 5), wherein an end surface
(Fig. 5, left side of 1022) is in a linkage engagement with a driven portion (Fig. 5, right side of
Bearing Ring 105) to drive the reciprocation of the movable blade relative to the fixed blade
between the first position and the second position (Page 9, para 1), the at least two movable
blades having movement directions opposite to each other, and wherein the cutting apparatus further comprises at least two elastic restoration members distributed in an axial direction of the
rotary shaft (Fig. 5, Elastic Element 109), at least one of the at least two elastic restoration
members being located between the housing and a first one of the N movable blades, and at least
another one of the at least two elastic restoration members being located between the housing
and a Nth one of the N movable blades (a housing entirely surrounding the blade structure except
for the cutting teeth is disclosed by Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above. With this housing
structure added to Zheng, the shape of the housing of Wang and the location of the elastic
restoration member of Zheng means that each elastic member is always between at least one of
the moveable blades and the housing).
Regarding claim 3, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein: each of the N movable blades has driven portions opposite to each other in a length
direction of the movable blade (Fig. 5, left and right sides of Bearing Rings 105); at the first
position, one of the driven portions of the movable blade is abutted against an end surface of the
drive member adjacent to the one driven portion to be pushed towards the second position (Fig.
5, right side of Bearing Ring 105 associated with the top moveable blade is against the left side
of 1022, and is adjacent to the right side of Bearing Ring 105 associated with the bottom
moveable blade when the top blade is all the way to the left); and at the second position, another
one of the driven portions of the movable blade is abutted against an end surface of the drive
member adjacent to the other driven portion to be pushed towards the first position (Fig. 5, right
side of Bearing Ring 105 associated with the top moveable blade is against the left side of 1022,
and is adjacent to the right side of Bearing Ring 105 associated with the bottom moveable blade
when the top blade is all the way to the right).
Regarding claim 4, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein when the drive mechanism comprises the N drive members (Fig. 5, 1022 and Bearings
101), and a drive member is an asymmetrical drive member (Fig. 5, 1022).
The existing combination of Zheng and Wang fails to teach that each of the N drive
members is asymmetrical, and that two adjacent of the N drive members have opposite
inclination directions to drive the two adjacent movable blades to move in opposite directions.
However, Wang further teaches a cutting apparatus with N drive members (Fig. 7B, 222),
each being asymmetrical, and having opposite inclination directions for driving two adjacent
moveable blades to move in opposite directions (Fig. 7A, 222 drives 211 to reciprocate, which is
connected to and causes the reciprocation of Cutting Piece 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of the existing
combination of Zheng and Wang to include the limitations of claim 4 as taught by Wang. Doing
so is beneficial as it creates a staggered movement between the two sets of cutters and reaches a
better cutting effect (Wang; Page 6, Para 5).
Regarding claim 5, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein when the drive mechanism comprises the N+1 or N-1 drive members, the N+1 or N-1
drive members are each symmetrical drive members (Fig. 5, 1022 and Bearings 101 are
symmetrical when viewed from an axial direction), and the two adjacent movable blades have
opposite movement directions, and wherein the end surface has a maximum axial length position
point and a minimum axial length position point in the axial direction of the rotary shaft (Fig. 5,
maximum axial length at the bottom of 1022, and minimum axial length at the top of 1022) , the
maximum axial length position point and the minimum axial length position point being respectively located at two opposite sides of the rotary shaft (Fig. 5), wherein for two adjacent
drive members, the maximum axial length position point of one of the two adjacent drive
members is opposite to the minimum axial length position point of another one of the two
adjacent drive members (Fig. 5, bearings 101 are the same axial length throughout, so any point
is both a maximum and minimum length, meaning the maximum axial length of rightmost
bearing 101 can be opposite to the minimum axial length of 1022).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein when the drive mechanism comprises N+1 or N-1 drive members (Fig. 5, 1022 and
Bearings 101), some of the N+1 or N-1 drive members are symmetrical drive members, and
some of the N+1 or N-1 drive members are asymmetrical drive members (Fig. 5, 1022 is largely
asymmetrical and Bearings 101 are symmetrical), wherein movable blades located at two sides
of the symmetrical drive members have opposite movement directions (Fig. 5, the top moveable
blade moves left when the bottom moveable blade moves right, and vice versa) , and movable
blades located at two sides of the asymmetrical drive members have a same movement direction
(Fig. 5, both the top and bottom moveable blade move in the axial direction).
Regarding claim 8, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 7,
wherein the end surface has a maximum axial length position point and a minimum axial length
position point in the axial direction of the rotary shaft (Fig. 5, maximum axial length at the
bottom of 1022, and minimum axial length at the top of 1022), the maximum axial length
position point and the minimum axial length position point being respectively located at two
opposite sides of the rotary shaft (Fig. 5), wherein: for two adjacent symmetrical drive members,
the maximum axial length position point of one of the two adjacent drive members is opposite to
the minimum axial length position point of another one of the two adjacent drive members (Fig. 5, bearings 101 are the same axial length throughout, so any point is both a maximum and
minimum length, meaning the maximum axial length of rightmost bearing 101 can be opposite to
the minimum axial length of the leftmost bearing 101); the asymmetrical drive member is
obliquely disposed in the direction close to the rotary shaft (Fig. 5); and two end surfaces of each
of the symmetrical drive member and the asymmetrical drive member have a concave portion
and a convex portion (Fig. 5, the inside ring which allows for the shaft to pass through the drive
members in concave, and the outermost ring of the drive members is convex) , wherein the
convex portion of the end surface of the symmetrical drive member and a concave portion of an
end surface of an asymmetrical drive member adjacent to the symmetrical drive member are
positioned in one-to- one correspondence (Fig. 5, the drive members are adjacent and therefore
their faces are positioned in one-to-one correspondence).
Regarding claim 9, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 4,
wherein the driven portion (Fig. 5, left and right sides of Bearing Rings 105) of the movable
blade is in line contact with the end surface of the drive member (Fig. 5, 1022).
Regarding claim 10, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein the end surface of the drive member is a smooth curved surface (Fig. 5, 1022), wherein
the smooth curved surface of the symmetrical drive member is divided into a concave portion
and a convex portion (Fig. 5, for 101, the inside ring which allows for the shaft to pass through
the drive members in concave, and the outermost ring of the drive members is convex), wherein:
a lowest position point of the concave portion is coincident with the minimum axial length
position point, and a highest position point of the convex portion is coincident with the
maximum axial length position point (Fig. 5, bearings 101 are the same axial length throughout,
so any point is both a maximum and minimum length, and therefore at the lowest and highest point there is the minimum and/or maximum axial length); and a concave portion of one of end
surfaces of the asymmetrical drive member and a convex portion of another one of the end
surfaces of the asymmetrical drive member are positioned in one-to-one correspondence (Fig. 5,
the convex and concave portions of 1022 are directly above/ below one another), and a convex
portion of a first of end surfaces of the asymmetrical drive member and a concave portion of a
second of the end surfaces of the asymmetrical drive member are positioned in one-to-one
correspondence (Fig. 5, the convex and concave portions of the left and right sides of 1022 are
directly above/ below one another).
Regarding claim 11, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein: the end surface of the symmetrical drive member is an inclined plane (Fig. 5, 101); the
maximum axial length position point and the minimum axial length position point are
respectively located at a top end and a bottom end of the end surface (Fig. 5, are the same axial
length throughout, so any point is both a maximum and minimum length); and the end surface of
the asymmetrical drive member is an inclined plane (Fig. 5, 1022).
Regarding claim 12, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 1,
further comprising: N elastic pressing members (Fig. 1, Elastic Element 109) each having an end
fixed to the housing (Fig. 2, 109 is fixed to First Blade 107, which in the combination of Zheng
and Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above is fixed to the housing) and another end fixed to a
side of the movable blade away from the fixed blade to press and engage the fixed blade and the
movable blade (Fig. 3, Buckle 1082; Page 8, Para 1).
Regarding claim 13, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 11,
wherein: the movable blade is slidably connected to the housing; or the movable blade is slidably
connected to the fixed blade (Fig. 1, last paragraph of Page 5).
Regarding claim 14, Zheng further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein: the driven portion is a roller disposed on the movable blade, or the driven portion is a
smooth flange on the movable blade (Fig. 5, examiner interprets 105 to be a smooth flange).
Regarding claim 15, Zheng teaches a cleaning device comprising the cutting apparatus
according to claim 14 (See the rejection of claim 14 above) and a brush head (Page 7, Para 4).
Zheng fails to teach that the cleaning device comprises a casing, and that the toothed edge
of the fixed blade or the toothed edge of the movable blade is in contact with an outer peripheral
surface of the brush head.
However, Wang teaches a cleaning device comprising a casing (Fig. 15, Shell 7), a brush
head (Fig. 12a, First Rolling Brush 1), and that the toothed edge of the fixed blade or the toothed
edge of the movable blade is in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the brush head (Fig,
12a, Cutting Piece 3 and Lug Boss 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of Zheng to include
the limitations of claim 15 as taught by Wang. Doing so is beneficial as it puts the blades in a
better location for cutting foreign objects away from the brush of the cleaning device (Wang;
Page 17, Para 1).
Regarding claim 16, Zheng further teaches a method for controlling cutting of hair by
using the cleaning device according to claim 15, the method comprising: determining that the
cleaning device is performing a cleaning operation, and controlling starting of the cutting
apparatus (Page 10, Para 2; when the brush begins to rotate, the cutting blades also begin to
reciprocate).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao-qun
Zheng (CN 111329392 A – hereinafter Zheng) in view of Shou-mu Wang et al. (CN
112674642 A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of
Kelsey Alden (WO 2018218157 A1 – hereinafter Alden).
Regarding claim 17, Zheng further teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein
said determining that the cleaning device has completed the cleaning operation, and controlling
the starting of the cutting apparatus comprises: controlling the brush head to rotate in a same
direction as the cleaning operation or an opposite direction to the cleaning operation (the
cleaning operation is the rotation of the brush head (See the rejection of claim 16 above), and
therefore they move in the same direction).
The combination of Zheng and Wang fails to teach controlling a fan of the cleaning
device to start simultaneously during the control of the starting of the cutting apparatus.
However, Alden teaches a fan (Fig. 2, Vacuum Source 32) which starts simultaneously
during the control of the starting of the brush head rotation (Fig. 2, Rotating Agitator 18 [0038]).
In combination with Zheng and Wang, where the brush rotation and cutting begin at the same time, the fan and cutting apparatus would start at the same time. Additionally, it is well known in the art of vacuum cleaners to have the fan and brush rotation start at the same time, when the power button is switched on.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of the combination
of Zheng and Wang to include the limitations of claim 17 as taught by Alden. Doing so is
beneficial as it prevents the vacuum from clogging when in use (Alden [0083]).
Claims 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Xiao-qun Zheng (CN 111329392 A – hereinafter Zheng) in view of Shou-mu Wang et al.
(CN 112674642 A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of
Min Zhong et al. (US 10307031 B2 – hereinafter Zhong).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Zheng and Wang teach the cutting apparatus
according to claim 14 (See the rejection of claim 14 above). Wang additionally teaches that the
toothed edge of the fixed blade or the toothed edge of the moveable blade is in contact with an
outer peripheral surface of a brush (See the rejection of claim 15 above).
The combination of Zheng and Wang fails to teach a cleaning base station, comprising: a
base; and the cutting apparatus is mounted on the base.
However, Zhong teaches a cleaning base station comprising a base (Fig. 1, Charging
Stand 100), and a cutting apparatus mounted on the base (Fig. 1, apparatus comprising Blade 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of the combination
of Zheng and Wang to include the limitations of claim 18 as taught by Zhong. Doing so is
beneficial as it allows the cleaning device to charge and be cleaned simultaneously (Zhong; Col
5, lines 13-24).
Regarding claim 19, the existing combination of Zheng, Wang, and Zhong does not
teach a method for controlling cutting of hair by using the cleaning base station according to
claim 18, the method comprising: determining that a cleaning device is placed in a
predetermined area of the cleaning base station, and controlling starting of the cutting apparatus
and rotation of the brush head of the cleaning device.
However, Zhong further teaches determining that a cleaning device is placed in a
predetermined area of the cleaning base station, and controlling starting of the cutting apparatus
and rotation of the brush head of the cleaning device (Col 5, lines 25-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of the combination
of Zheng, Wang, and Zhong to include the limitations of claim 19 as taught by Zhong. Doing so
is beneficial as it allows the base to effectively cut hairs stuck on the cleaning device (Zhong;
Col. 5, lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Zheng and Wang already teaches cleaning system, comprising: a cleaning device; the cleaning device being provided with a cutting apparatus, comprising: a housing having an opening; N groups of blades each comprising a fixed blade and a movable blade, wherein: N fixed blades are located in the housing and arranged linearly, where N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2; and N movable blades are located in the housing and arranged linearly, each of the N movable blades corresponding to one of the N fixed blades, each of the N fixed blades and each of the N movable blades having a toothed edge protruding from the opening towards an outer side of the housing, and the toothed edge of the fixed blade being tightly fitted to the toothed edge of the movable blade; and a drive mechanism in a linkage engagement with the movable blade and configured to drive a reciprocation of the movable blade relative to the fixed blade between a first position and a second position, at least two movable blades having movement directions opposite to each other (See the rejection of claim 1 above). The combination of Zhong, Zheng, and Wang teaches a cleaning base station in addition to the cleaning device (See the rejection of claim 18 above). Zheng and Wang do not explicitly teach that each movable blade is individually detachable from the drive mechanism, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of the combination of Zheng and Wang such that each movable blade is detachable from the drive mechanism as it has been held that making a feature separable is obvious “if it were considered desirable for any reason” In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). It is well known in the art that it can be desirable to replace a blade when it becomes dull, for which purpose the blade must be detachable. Further, if one movable blade of Zheng was made to be detachable, it would be individually detachable since it is not integral with or directly attached to the other movable blade.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao-qun Zheng (CN 111329392 A – hereinafter Zheng) in view of Shou-mu Wang et al. (CN 112674642 A – hereinafter Wang) and Min Zhong et al. (US 10307031 B2 – hereinafter Zhong) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kelsey Alden (WO 2018218157 A1 – hereinafter Alden).
Regarding claim 20, Zheng already teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein said controlling the rotation of the brush head of the cleaning device comprises: controlling the brush head to rotate in a same direction as the cleaning operation (See the rejection of claim 17 above). Controlling a fan of the cleaning device to start simultaneously during the control of the starting of the cutting apparatus is taught by Alden in combination with Zheng and Wang, and now additionally Zhong (See the rejection of claim 17 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Zheng does not teach “at least two movable blades having movement directions opposite to each other; and each movable blade is individually detachable from the drive mechanism”. Examiner has demonstrated in the rejection of claim 1 above that Zheng does teach at least two movable blades (Fig. 3, Second Blades 108; Page 3 Para 5 and Page 2 Para 7 – there are two cutters, each cutter comprising a first blade and a second blade, the Second Blades 108 being moveable) having movement directions opposite to each other (Fig. 1; Page 3 Para 5 - the guide tool 1022 is irregularly shaped so the movable blade at both the top and bottom of the guide shaft are moving opposite directions while the guide tool rotates). Additionally, while neither Zheng nor Wang teaches that each moveable blade is individually detachable from the drive mechanism, In re Dulberg is used in the rejection of claim 1 above to show that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of the combination of Zheng and Wang to include this limitation.
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 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, 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights