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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the stable position must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 12-13 reads “to bias the pivoting movement of the head with respect to the base to a stable position” should read “to bias the head during pivotal movement with respect to the base to a stable position”.
Claim 2, lines 1-3 reads “wherein the moment arm of the first biasing point from the biasing axis is the same length as the moment arm of the second biasing point from the biasing axis” should read wherein the moment arm of the first biasing point from the biasing axis and the moment arm of the second biasing point from the biasing axis are equal in length”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-14 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 claim discloses “wherein the first biasing element and the second biasing element are mounted at a fixed point” in lines 10-11 of the claim and “the first biasing point and the second biasing point are constrained to pivot relative to the fixed point” in lines 16-17 of the claim. The instant disclosure lacks sufficient written description of the “fixed point” as the first limitation requires the biasing elements to be mounted to a specific location but no such location is identified and no structure is identified for the fixed point and the second limitation requires the first and second biasing points to be constrained to pivot relative to the fixed point but it is unknown how they would pivot relative to the fixed point. While the biasing elements are shown to be mounted to the base in the instant drawings they do not appear to be mounted as a single point and no specific mounting point is identified. Additionally, the claim does not restrict the fixed point to any specific structure and as the instant disclosure states that the biasing elements are mounted at any fixed point and then lists examples of structures it cannot be determined as to what structures the applicant considers having fixed points. Further, the instant disclosure does not disclose the relative nature between the biasing points and the fixed point. As such, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to provide a sufficient written description for all claimed elements.
Regarding claims 2-14, these claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-14 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 claim 1, the claim states “wherein the first biasing element and the second biasing element are mounted at a fixed point” in lines 10-11 of the claim and “the first biasing point and the second biasing point are constrained to pivot relative to the fixed point” in lines 16-17 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the “fixed point” is as a fixed point is not shown in the drawings and the specification states on Pg. 6 lines 21-22 that “the biasing elements are mounted at any fixed point, such as on the head, on the base, or on the arms”. While the drawings do show the biasing elements mounted to the base it is unclear at what point the fixed point would be as the biasing elements contact the base in more than a single location. It is also unclear if there is more than one fixed point as there are two biasing elements mounted in different locations. Additionally, the specification’s description of the mounting of the biasing elements is indefinite as it states that the biasing elements can be mounted to any fixed point and then gives examples of several structures. As the instant disclosure does not define a fixed point the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation would be any stationary or specified point. Since the instant specification only lists example of structures that may have fixed points and the claim does not state what structure the fixed point is found on the claim is renders indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-14, these claims are also rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim states “comprising a stroke limiter which is configured to obstruct pivoting movement of the head relative to the base beyond a limit” in lines 1-2 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the applicant considers “a limit”. The specification states on Pg. 6, lines 16-17 that “the head is biased about the primary axis to a stable position, which is this example is at the limit at which the arm abuts the stroke limiter”. The common definition of a limit is a point or level which something may not extend or pass. It is unclear from the claim if the limit is when the stroke limiter obstructs pivoting movement or if the limit is some other boundary beyond and it is unclear from the specification if the limit is drawn to the point at which two elements abut before either separating or being fully in contact with each other. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood the limit to be the point at which a structure is obstructed or prevented from further movement.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, these claims are also rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, the claim states “wherein each biasing element is disposed on a single integral biasing unit” in lines 1-2 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the single integral biasing unit is as the specification states on Pg. 2 lines 29-30 “each biasing element may be disposed on a single integral biasing unit” and on Pg. 2 line 37 – Pg. 3 line 1 “the biasing unit comprising a first biasing element and a second biasing element” and on Pg. 3 lines 2-3 “the biasing unit comprising a pair of integral stops for each leaf spring”. In other words the biasing unit may be a structure the biasing elements are disposed on, the biasing elements themselves or a pair of integral stops. As it is unclear what structure the biasing unit refers and how that structure relates to the biasing elements the claim is rendered indefinite. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood the single integral biasing unit as being the structure to which the biasing elements are disposed on.
The follow claims have insufficient antecedent basis for the identified limitations:
Claim 2, lines 1-3: “moment arm of the first biasing point” and “moment arm of the second biasing point”
Claim 3, lines 1-3: “moment arm of the first biasing point” and “moment arm of the second biasing point”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molema et al. (US 2016/0288348 A1), hereafter known as Molema.
Regarding claim 1, Molema discloses a mounting assembly (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 18) for a hair cutting appliance (Molema, Fig. 1, 10), the mounting assembly comprising:
a head (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 20) for receiving a cutting unit;
a base (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 38) and a mount, wherein the head is mounted to the base via the mount such that the head is pivotably moveable relative to the base about a primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p) and a secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below), wherein the primary axis and the secondary axis are not parallel (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below); and
a first biasing element (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 80a) and a second biasing element (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 80b), wherein the first biasing element and the second biasing element act independently of one another, the biasing elements of Molema are capable of acting independent from each other,
wherein the first biasing element (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 80a) and the second biasing element (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 80b) are mounted at a fixed point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and configured to act on the head or the mount at a respective first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) to bias the pivoting movement of the head with respect to the base to a stable position, the biasing elements of Molema bias the mount or the head to be the in the stable position shown in Fig. 9 of Molema,
wherein the first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and the second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) are located on the same side of a primary plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) which comprises a biasing axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below), parallel to the primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p), about which the first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and the second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) are constrained to pivot relative to the fixed point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below), and a line parallel to a force direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) defined by a biasing force applied at one of the first biasing point or the second biasing point, to bias the head in one pivoting direction to the stable position with respect to the base about the primary axis (Molema, P. 0077), and
wherein the first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and the second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) are located on opposing sides of a secondary plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) which comprises the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and a line parallel to the force direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below), to balance the head in the stable position with respect to the base about the secondary axis.
Regarding claim 2, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according to claim 1, wherein the moment arm of the first biasing point from the biasing axis is the same length as the moment arm of the second biasing point from the biasing axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above), as the first biasing point and second biasing point disclosed by Molema are equidistant from each of the biasing axis over the secondary plane the length of the moment arm between a biasing point and a biasing axis on the same side of the secondary plane will have the same length as the corresponding moment arm on the other side of the secondary plane.
Regarding claim 3, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according to claim 1, wherein the moment arm of the first biasing point from the secondary axis is the same length as the moment arm of the second biasing point from the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above), as the first biasing point and second biasing point disclosed by Molema are equidistant from the secondary axis the length of the moment arm between a biasing point and the secondary axis will be equal.
Regarding claim 7, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according claim 1, comprising a stroke limiter (Molema, Fig. 9, 58 and 60) which is configured to obstruct pivoting movement of the head (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 20) relative to the base (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 38) beyond a limit (Molema, P. 0070).
Regarding claim 8, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according to claim 7, wherein the stroke limiter (Molema, Fig. 9, 58 and 60) is configured to obstruct pivoting movement of the four-bar linkage to thereby inhibit pivoting movement of the head (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 20) relative to the base (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 38) about the primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p) beyond the limit (Molema, P. 0036 and 0038), wherein the biasing force at the first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above) and the second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above) have the same moment direction about the biasing axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above), each of the arms disclosed by Molema have two biasing points where each of the biasing elements contacts the each arm, at these points on the same arm the moment direction will be the same as the biasing element applies the same biasing force against the arm.
Regarding claim 9, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according to claim 7, wherein the stable position is the limit (Molema, P. 0077).
Regarding claim 11, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according to claim 1, wherein each biasing element (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 80a and 80b) is disposed on a single integral biasing unit (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 38).
Regarding claim 14, Molema discloses a hair cutting appliance (Molema, Fig. 1, 10) comprising a mounting assembly (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 18) according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molema (US 2016/0288348 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 1, wherein the mount comprises two arms (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 42 and 44) disposed between the base (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 38) and the head (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 30) to form a linkage (Molema, P. 0067), each arm being coupled at the head, and coupled at a joint (Molema, Fig. 5, 48 and 50) to the base, each joint at each head coupling configured to permit pivoting movement about respective parallel head pivot axes, such that the head is pivotable relative to the base about one of the primary axis and the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above); wherein the joints at the base are configured to permit pivoting movement of the arms (16) about at least the other of the primary axis and the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above), although Molema does not disclose that the head pivoting about the secondary axis the head as shown by Molema would be capable of at least some pivotal movement about the secondary axis.
Molema does not teach joints with a respective head coupling on a head and other joints with respective base coupling on a base. While Molema does not teach these couplings it does teach the pivotal movement at each of the joint locations.
Molema further teaches in an embodiment of Fig. 11 a mounting assembly featuring head couplings on a head (Molema, Fig. 11, 52a and 54a) and base couplings on a base (Molema, Fig. 11, 48a and 50a). Such couplings allow for the head, arms and base to be distinct parts into of an integral structure as taught by other embodiments of Molema (Molema, P. 0083).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the joints of Molema with the couplings of the Fig. 11 embodiment of Molema to provide living joints as doing so allows for each of the arms, base and head to be distant components.
Regarding claim 5, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 4, wherein the joints at the base couplings further permit pivoting movement about respective base pivot axes which are parallel to the head pivot axes (Molema, Fig. 3-4), wherein each arm is coupled to a different respective head coupling (Molema, Fig. 11, 52a and 54a) to permit pivoting movement about different parallel head pivot axes (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above), thereby forming a four-bar linkage (Molema, P. 0083), by which the head is pivotably moveable relative to the base about a virtual pivot axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p) which is one of the primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p) or the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above).
Regarding claim 6, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 5, wherein the virtual pivot axis is the primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p, P. 0022).
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molema (US 2016/0288348 A1) in view of Beugels et al. (US 2012/0060382 A1), hereafter known as Beugels.
Regarding claim 10, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 1.
Molema does not teach wherein each biasing element is a leaf spring.
Beugels teaches a mounting assembly (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6), wherein the biasing element (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6, 26 and 32) is a leaf spring (Beugels, P. 0047 and 0050). As the leaf springs of Beugels are a well-known alternative to the torsion springs taught by Molema (Beugels, P. 0015) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the biasing elements of Molema to be leaf springs as taught by Beugels..
Regarding claim 12, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 1.
Molema does not teach comprising a stop for each biasing element which is configured to abut the respective biasing element to limit movement of the biasing element to thereby pretension the biasing element.
Beugels teaches a stop (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6, 23a, 26a, 33a and 33b) for each biasing element (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6, 26 and 32) which is configured to abut the respective biasing element to limit movement of the biasing element to thereby pretension the biasing element (Beugels, P. 0047 and 0050). This arrangement allows for the spring to be preloaded to provide addition force when pivoting (Beugels, P. 0047 and 0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify mounting assembly taught by Molema to comprise a stop for each of the biasing element which is configured to abut the respective biasing element to limit movement of the biasing element to thereby pretension the biasing element as taught by Beugels as doing so allows for the spring to be preloaded to provide additional force when pivoting.
Regarding claim 13, Molema in view of Beugels teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 12, wherein the stop (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6, 26 and 32) is separate with the biasing element.
Molema in view of Beugels does not teach wherein the stop is integral with the biasing element.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the stop taught by Molema in view of Beugels to be integral with the biasing element
In the same field of hair cutting appliances it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the stop by forming the stop taught by Molema in view of Beugels to be integral with the biasing element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make a component integral if it would be considered desirable for any reason to form the components as a single piece construction. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.04 V(B) "Making Integral". Larson states "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." Since the stop and biasing element taught by Beugels are formed separately a worker in the art could reasonably modify the two components to be formed integral without compromising their functions, thus making a component integral does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791